Additive Stabilizer Distance - The Simple Solution

[Lecic]

preserve balance between reactor size, ship size,

That's an interesting way of saying "dimension based balancing," but yes, that is, unfortunately, what stabilizers are being used for, and what they are realistically only good for.

Why is a "balance between reactor size and ship size" necessary? What does it accomplish? All it is good for is enforcing an RP centric build policy for normal ships and creates a meta of dumbbells and spaghetti for serious PvPers who don't care about aesthetics.

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.

Yes, I agree. The new reactor and chamber system are great and I like them a lot more than the old power and passives system.

HOWEVER

Stabilizers are a confusing and unfun element that has no interesting engineering depth beyond the initial figuring out of how they work, which a monkey could do in 10 minutes, and exists mostly to force players into leaving bits of their ship empty for no benefit. The rest of the power system absolutely does not need stabilizers at all to be properly balanced. It is a parasitic mechanic that only exists for the sake of existing, with no bonus to the players. I have yet to see a proposal that really makes it one either, and yes, I include my own in that one.

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.

"Defeatism - Claiming an end is impossible to achieve as a reason for not following a line of reason." [X]

This is a non-argument. I will continue to argue the merits of my points regardless of how much YOU think it won't work. If we had followed this logic with the original power 2.0 proposal, we would still be dealing with heat boxes. Arguing our points works.

 

[petlahk]

Why is a "balance between reactor size and ship size" necessary? What does it accomplish?

Stop begging the question.

 

[Dire Venom]

(My feeble attempts to try and represent this idea

This is a bad illustration, but I think that given an equal number stabilizors this:

Should be just as effcient as this:

With each stabilizor group generating low effcincey zones around it. E.g:
Thus making these two designs equally viable:

Bubbles not drawn to scale, representing low effceiny zones where additional stabilizor groups will contribute nothing to the ship.
(Yeah I know horrible representation)

 

[petlahk]

-Snip-

Uhhh. That second image and the corresponding final image might be a little bit off. If that second image is four separate groups then each of those individual four groups would each have a bubble. It's alright if the second image is just one big group though. Also, your representation is correct for the first and corresponding third images.

Additionally, I would like to point out that your representation assumes that the stabilizer distances are based on stabilizer group size rather than reactor group size. I believe that what was discussed was that they be fixed and be a portion of reactor size. However, it wasn't really decided upon so I'm willing to concede the point.

Edit: Nevermind. You stated that it was one group. Ignore the first paragraph.

 

[Lecic]

Stop begging the question.

Answer my question. What does forcing empty space through the power system add to the game? Why is this a feature we should want?

 

[petlahk]

Answer my question. What does forcing empty space through the power system add to the game? Why is this a feature we should want?

I answered it already. I answered it in relation to why the mechanic is necessary. If you choose to ignore it and continue to ask this question and continue to argue the same thing and not change your mind. That's fine. You have a right to your own opinion but I'm not gonna sit here filling up the thread by responding to you in posts that contribute very little to the discussion of this suggestion. All of your comments are arguments against the stabilizer system as a whole. That's a discussion for some other thread or some other suggestion. Considering that, I see no reason why I should respond to you in this thread from this point forward.

 

[Lecic]

I answered it already. I answered it in relation to why the mechanic is necessary.

Well, you claim it puts aesthetics minded players and PvP/PvE players on a more even playing field. This is demonstrably false as all this mechanic does is attempt to force empty space in a "traditional" style hull, which is ineffective as PvP players do not care about aesthetics, resulting in dumbbells, islands, and spaghetti. As long as the mechanic attempts to force empty space this will continue to be true, and your proposal still tries to force empty space. The entire point of the mechanic is the force empty space. This is bad game design. Players should be rewarded for building something fun (like interior for their crew) rather than punished for doing something that makes logical sense (like filling the entire volume of your hull with functional components rather than leaving a random chunk empty because the game doesn't allow you to fit enough power in the hull to power a full hull of systems because it doesn't want you to).

Thus, I am proposing your suggestion is pointless and the mechanic as a whole should be removed. Am I not allowed to say your suggestion is unnecessary and bad for the game on the thread for your suggestion? If you cannot handle negative criticism of your thread then don't make a thread.

I'll go though, you're clearly not interested in talking to people who aren't positive about your suggestion.

 

[Calhoun]

Players should be rewarded for building something fun (like interior for their crew) rather than punished for doing something that makes logical sense

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Encourage, don't force.

 

[Valiant70]

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

Stop begging the question.

Answer my question. What does forcing empty space through the power system add to the game? Why is this a feature we should want?

I answered it already. I answered it in relation to why the mechanic is necessary. If you choose to ignore it and continue to ask this question and continue to argue the same thing and not change your mind. That's fine. You have a right to your own opinion but I'm not gonna sit here filling up the thread by responding to you in posts that contribute very little to the discussion of this suggestion. All of your comments are arguments against the stabilizer system as a whole. That's a discussion for some other thread or some other suggestion. Considering that, I see no reason why I should respond to you in this thread from this point forward.

Well, you claim it puts aesthetics minded players and PvP/PvE players on a more even playing field. This is demonstrably false as all this mechanic does is attempt to force empty space in a "traditional" style hull, which is ineffective as PvP players do not care about aesthetics, resulting in dumbbells, islands, and spaghetti. As long as the mechanic attempts to force empty space this will continue to be true, and your proposal still tries to force empty space. The entire point of the mechanic is the force empty space. This is bad game design. Players should be rewarded for building something fun (like interior for their crew) rather than punished for doing something that makes logical sense (like filling the entire volume of your hull with functional components rather than leaving a random chunk empty because the game doesn't allow you to fit enough power in the hull to power a full hull of systems because it doesn't want you to).

Thus, I am proposing your suggestion is pointless and the mechanic as a whole should be removed. Am I not allowed to say your suggestion is unnecessary and bad for the game on the thread for your suggestion? If you cannot handle negative criticism of your thread then don't make a thread.

I'll go though, you're clearly not interested in talking to people who aren't positive about your suggestion.

Let's theorize for a moment what a system without stabilizers would look like, compared to one with stabilizers tweaked as this thread suggests.

1. Spaghetti, dumbbells, chandeliers, etc. go away. - good for everyone
2. Nacelles, rings, and other protrustions tend to pose a disadvantage (lower system-to-hull ratio) - bad for aesthetic builders
3. Interior space has a greater tendency to require more "skin" to cover the added volume - bad for RPers.

Concern 3 will be solved by the inclusion of a crew system, assuming such a system is done well. Until then, the disadvantage could be offset by reducing weight and adding small bonuses to decoration blocks and by improving the armor system.

Concern 2 might be solved by other means, so this is where effort should be focused if you want to get rid of stabilizers.

 

[petlahk]

Let's theorize for a moment what a system without stabilizers would look like, compared to one with stabilizers tweaked as this thread suggests.

1. Spaghetti, dumbbells, chandeliers, etc. go away. - good for everyone
2. Nacelles, rings, and other protrustions tend to pose a disadvantage (lower system-to-hull ratio) - bad for aesthetic builders
3. Interior space has a greater tendency to require more "skin" to cover the added volume - bad for RPers.

Concern 3 will be solved by the inclusion of a crew system, assuming such a system is done well. Until then, the disadvantage could be offset by reducing weight and adding small bonuses to decoration blocks and by improving the armor system.

Concern 2 might be solved by other means, so this is where effort should be focused if you want to get rid of stabilizers.

Thank you Valiant. I was getting really worn thin.

 

[Dire Venom]

Boy communication is difficult XD
Lot of valid ideas in this thread though, thank you for sharing

 

[Valiant70]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Encourage, don't force.

My hope is that if the numbers are right, the stabilizer tweaks will encourage more interesting shapes with protrusions on them, rather than leaving a large brick as the optimal shape (maximizing system volume per armor required to cover it), while at the same time leaving the bulky shapes viable for armor tanks, which is what they look like they should be.

As I said above, there might be another way to accomplish this, so if you get any bright ideas, write a thread and let me know.

 

[petlahk]

Discussion - Removing, Improving, or Finding Alternatives to Stabilizers

 

[MacThule]

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.

This is exactly the issue.

Multiple stabilizer groups are an easy solution, but only if a maximum efficient distance bubble is implemented as part of the system in addition to the current minimum distance so that successive stabilizer groups simply cannot simply be strung out along a single axis and still obtain optimal efficiency.

 

[YamiHikari]

I'd like to clarify something, but also make a couple minor tweaks.

Your idea is to basically say that the TOTAL of the distance of each stabilizer group from the reactor additively effects their efficiency, right?

If so, I see a couple loopholes:
You can get maximum stability from the reactors by placing stabilizers in small groups around the reactor group. Even if you make a minimum size this is still easily achieved.
By placing a single group far away, you can still get a lot of efficiency from any other groups that are nearby.
By placing stabilizer groups close together, you can sort of cheat the system.

To combat these issues, why don't you do this:
Keep the additive distance.
In addition to keeping the requirement of a minimum distance from the reactors, require there to be a minimum distance between groups of stabilizers. This should most likely be handled in a way that is not absolute (groups within a certain distance cancel each other out) and instead suggestive/discouraging. Basically, stabilizer groups gain more efficiency and have a better additive effect the farther they are apart. If you have two groups very close together, only a small fraction of their distances from the reactors is contributed to the total and the stability they add is mildly reduced.
Require larger stabilizer groups to be farther apart while still preventing many smaller groups from being close together (probably using above mechanic).
Instead of adding the full distance of each group to the total efficiency, why not add a reduced amount so that farther groups are still more efficient.

 

[petlahk]

By placing a single group far away, you can still get a lot of efficiency from any other groups that are nearby.

The efficiency system would still work similarly to the way it does now. Meaning that if you placed one group far away and had enough stabilizers and distance in that group to achieve 100% efficiency for all stabilizers and had the minimum number of stabilizers for 100% at 100% efficiency then you're done. If you had one group far away that achieved 100% between size and distance then any groups closer would just be extra stabilizers because the stabilizer efficiency does not push your reactor to perform better than it would without stabilizers implemented. Meaning that one adequately sized group far away would be exactly the same as the current one-axis system.

You can get maximum stability from the reactors by placing stabilizers in small groups around the reactor group. Even if you make a minimum

Yes. I know. That's kind of the point. To combat the largest problem the proposal retains the 0% bubble. And to combat the problem of stacking stabilizers right next to each other in the same group the stabilizer groups would have their own 0% bubbles. See the last edit.

By placing stabilizer groups close together, you can sort of cheat the system.

Same answer as the comment above: 0% bubble around stabilizer groups as well.

In addition to keeping the requirement of a minimum distance from the reactors, require there to be a minimum distance between groups of stabilizers

Adding the same sort of tiered distance between stabilizers as currently exists between stabilizers and reactors makes the entire system worse and misses the point of this proposal. Adding a similar sort of tiered distance between the stabilizer groups just forcibly spreads the stabilizers way out into a sort of net. This is, in some ways, even more destructive than the initial stabilizer system in game. The intent of this proposal was to retain freedom of building when building stabilizers. The most significant exploits are more easily solved with the simply 0% bubble around stabilizers rather than making the entire system more complicated and obtuse with multiple scaling efficiency vectors.

Your suggestion, to me, is just a worse and more controlling solution to problems that were already addressed earlier in this 2 page thread.

 

[YamiHikari]

The efficiency system would still work similarly to the way it does now. Meaning that if you placed one group far away and had enough stabilizers and distance in that group to achieve 100% efficiency for all stabilizers and had the minimum number of stabilizers for 100% at 100% efficiency then you're done. If you had one group far away that achieved 100% between size and distance then any groups closer would just be extra stabilizers because the stabilizer efficiency does not push your reactor to perform better than it would without stabilizers implemented. Meaning that one adequately sized group far away would be exactly the same as the current one-axis system.




Yes. I know. That's kind of the point. To combat the largest problem the proposal retains the 0% bubble. And to combat the problem of stacking stabilizers right next to each other in the same group the stabilizer groups would have their own 0% bubbles. See the last edit.




Same answer as the comment above: 0% bubble around stabilizer groups as well.



Adding the same sort of tiered distance between stabilizers as currently exists between stabilizers and reactors makes the entire system worse and misses the point of this proposal. Adding a similar sort of tiered distance between the stabilizer groups just forcibly spreads the stabilizers way out into a sort of net. This is, in some ways, even more destructive than the initial stabilizer system in game. The intent of this proposal was to retain freedom of building when building stabilizers. The most significant exploits are more easily solved with the simply 0% bubble around stabilizers rather than making the entire system more complicated and obtuse with multiple scaling efficiency vectors.

Your suggestion, to me, is just a worse and more controlling solution to problems that were already addressed earlier in this 2 page thread.

I see where you're coming from. While a 0% area is a good idea, how will that function? Will it grow/shrink with the size of the group? I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here because these kinds of major changes need to be really thought out before the devs make a final decision. If there are any major flaws that are missed you're less likely to actually get it implemented. Your suggestion is pretty solid, but it has some holes that need to be thought through and addressed.

Another example is the fact that the distances are directly additive. You mentioned that a net would be encouraged through tiered distance, and I agree after thinking about it. But you also have to consider that you can still entirely cheat the system by placing a single group of the minimum size a large distance away to make all stabilizers 100% efficient regardless of distance, encouraging both islands and dumbbells. You need to figure out a fix of some sort for this instant breaking. My thought, which I believe I mentioned earlier (I haven't checked to see if you mentioned it in your original post after my last comment) is to make the efficiencies indirectly additive. If you have two groups each at 50% of the distance required for 100% efficiency, instead of automatically having 100% efficiency, there should be some sort of decrease to the additive efficiency--something like maybe adding 25% instead of the full 50% each. An equation that could be used to sort this out (you can keep, modify, or throw it out as you please) would be:

Stabilizer Group Efficiency = Local Group Efficiency + 0.5(Sum of Non-Local Group Efficiencies)

This, of course, does reintroduce the advantage of placing groups farther away, so it does have its drawbacks; however, it could definitely be a start.

Another thing I do have to hark on is the calculation of group efficiency. Stabilizers currently get their efficiency from individual block location, and your suggestion revolves around stabilizer groups. You need to develop the group efficiency calculation in order to further support your suggestion instead of telling the devs to come up with one themselves. The options I can think of off the top of my head are to calculate based off of the closest block to the reactors or based off of the group's center. But I'll leave the overall calculation up to you.
[doublepost=1513518894,1513518445][/doublepost]I also want to suggest a minor modification to your original post. Instead of putting all of your edits in list form at the bottom, could you incorporate your edits into the post itself in locations they belong in? It will contribute to the cohesiveness and readability of the post (because it's a very long post). All you have to do to designate them is note which parts are edits and change something about the text (such as using a different color or bolding it or putting it in italics). It's a bit confusing to have to look back at the above text when reading edits at the bottom. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, so you can disregard it as you please.

 

[Valiant70]

But you also have to consider that you can still entirely cheat the system by placing a single group of the minimum size a large distance away to make all stabilizers 100% efficient regardless of distance, encouraging both islands and dumbbells.

This is why I believe they need to be connected by conduits. Plus I'd like the challenge of figuring out how to run conduits through the ship.

 

[YamiHikari]

This is why I believe they need to be connected by conduits. Plus I'd like the challenge of figuring out how to run conduits through the ship.

Actually, running conduits through the ship isn't very hard if you have a bunch of rooms and small spaces between the rooms and various floors of the ship (which brings me back to my frustrations with rails and doors that came with the new update and the bug it brought).

 

[Valiant70]

Actually, running conduits through the ship isn't very hard if you have a bunch of rooms and small spaces between the rooms and various floors of the ship

Not hard, but interesting.