Altered reactor config

[Lancake]

EDIT: This config is a thought experiment, depends on player feedback if it becomes a reality or if we'll need to adjust other parts instead to make the older config work fine.

In this config, stabilizer distance is disabled and system consuming blocks were adjusted to allow "fully system filled" ships to exist with a relatively small reactor and chamber size.

This is the result of the thread Literally just invert the stabilizer distances. that asked for inverted stabilizer distance. I can't really invert it like you would want right now but simply disabling the distance gives you the same result here.

If/when we introduce some explosiveness factor to reactors, and that would depend on how far/close your stabilizers are, then it does matter. We don't have that right now though, so you'll just have to imagine that putting them "too far" makes your ship go boom boom faster.

---

You can use the config by extracting it from this rar, and then simply copy pasting its content to your ./StarMade/data/config folder. Overwrite the old one and make sure you use Dev build 0.200.121 or later.
You'll have to copy paste the config every time you update your dev build.

Please take an in depth look to the whole system and build something more complex then try to alter it to different configurations after you've fully made it.

 

[Jojomo]

What will the most efficient shape for a ship be with this? A sphere (or cube for the sane)?

 

[aceface]

thanks so much lancake ^^

 

[Lancake]

What will the most efficient shape for a ship be with this? A sphere (or cube for the sane)?

The same as it was before. There's the whole "surface area vs volume" argument which would include rotation speed too.
I would say that you would prefer as much blocks in front of your reactor as possible where you're most likely going to get shot from.

 

[Jojomo]

The same as it was before. There's the whole "surface area vs volume" argument which would include rotation speed too.
I would say that you would prefer as much blocks in front of your reactor as possible where you're most likely going to get shot from.

So which changes that the power update is meant to drive/influence/result in would still happen if this alternate config became the real thing?

 

[Lancake]

So which changes that the power update is meant to drive/influence/result in would still happen if this alternate config became the real thing?

All but one, which would be keeping the system count relatively low compared to before.

With this config, you're encouraged to fully use your ship's volume for systems.
With the previous config, the amount of regen you can get is limited by your ship's dimensions/volume which keeps the system count extremely low.

 

[Jojomo]

All but one, which would be keeping the system count relatively low compared to before.

With this config, you're encouraged to fully use your ship's volume for systems.
With the previous config, the amount of regen you can get is limited by your ship's dimensions/volume which keeps the system count extremely low.

I could be wrong, but that one is a high priority goal of the update, isn't it?

Seeing as the old 3 axis power system is gone, the config here would actually push for shpere/cube ships even harder than the old power system did....

With the old 3 axis power system dimension mattered but was shared between 3 axes.
With the current "official" power 2.0 dimension matters a lot.
With the config in this thread dimension doesn't matter.​

 

[GDPR 302420]

Excellent work Lancake.

I would go for a config like this over forced voids in a ship any day.

 

[Lancake]

I could be wrong, but that one is a high priority goal of the update, isn't it?

Seeing as the old 3 axis power system is gone, the config here would actually push for shpere/cube ships even harder than the old power system did....

With the old 3 axis power system dimension mattered but was shared between 3 axes.
With the current "official" power 2.0 dimension matters a lot.
With the config in this thread dimension doesn't matter.​

Correct.

This config is to have those that disagree with me, to see for themselves how the inverted stabilizers would work.
So far this is just a thought experiment, depends on feedback what it will become.

 

[Lord Daro]

If/when we introduce some explosiveness factor to reactors, and that would depend on how far/close your stabilizers are, then it does matter. We don't have that right now though, so you'll just have to imagine that putting them "too far" makes your ship go boom boom faster.

Maybe shine could try to add some explosiveness to all system blocks. This might serve better to encourage some distance between the systems.
I can even imagine some people to build then relatively small and condensed ships. Very powerfull for their size but pretty much dead as soon as the shields fail (or a warhead hits).

EDIT:
In addition to exploding systems, maybe explosion effect could be added to all weapon types, depending on block count.
With almost every weapon having at least a small explosive radius spaced armor concepts might become more attractive, leading to more hollow/interior spaces.

 

[kikaha]

Ships i reconfigured with this config are way overpowered.

 

[Az14el]

this is jokes, just do exactly what you intended with reactor<>stabilizer mechanics, disregard everything the pvp community has said, push that shit through and let the same unimaginative sycophants tell you it's broken all over again and waste more of your own time.

 

[GnomeKing]

"disregard everything the pvp community has said" - i really dont think there is such a clear split - Starmade is about functional space ships, not just block decoration after all. Critical feedback has come from players with interests in all aspects of the game, because they want a diverse immersive experience> community interaction, faction contests, trade/resources/strategy, alliance and warfare > And Yes, ultimately where nicely designed ships can blow the crap out of each other, and where the design choices have real impacts

 

[kikaha]

There was NOTHING about nicely designed ANYTHING when i refitted my ships with this config. I crammed the hulls full to the brim while keeping all my interiors and my pretty vessels are now 2 to 3 times more powerfull than before. And before i had more than decent combat ships.

And i'm not happy about it. I didn't have to think once to fill the ship. its not design, its stacking.

Takes all the fun out of building nice, thought out aestetic yet powerfull ships.

 

[Jebediah1]

EDIT: This config is a thought experiment, depends on player feedback if it becomes a reality or if we'll need to adjust other parts instead to make the older config work fine.

In this config, stabilizer distance is disabled and system consuming blocks were adjusted to allow "fully system filled" ships to exist with a relatively small reactor and chamber size.

This is the result of the thread Literally just invert the stabilizer distances. that asked for inverted stabilizer distance. I can't really invert it like you would want right now but simply disabling the distance gives you the same result here.

If/when we introduce some explosiveness factor to reactors, and that would depend on how far/close your stabilizers are, then it does matter. We don't have that right now though, so you'll just have to imagine that putting them "too far" makes your ship go boom boom faster.

---

You can use the config by extracting it from this rar, and then simply copy pasting its content to your ./StarMade/data/config folder. Overwrite the old one and make sure you use Dev build 0.200.121 or later.
You'll have to copy paste the config every time you update your dev build.

Please take an in depth look to the whole system and build something more complex then try to alter it to different configurations after you've fully made it.

Thanks lancake!

 

[Az14el]

Promoting empty space promotes spacing out your ships and still achieving essentially 100% fill simply by having a non-contiguous shape, it doesn't do a single god damn thing for interiors. Adding more length on predominately one axis doesn't do shit against your mobility, you can turn & track targets absolutely fine up until massive scales, this is why we use verticals. The very idea that high density "filled in" ships are some kind of meta only issue is just ridiculous, there's absolutely nothing inherently better about a solid & discrete object compared to a dispersed & low density one in this game, it's the absolute opposite in fact as one takes damage & interacts with both current and dev power more efficiently simply by not constricting dimension requirements to some aesthetic principled design. Pointing out that having more blocks on your ship makes it stronger isn't news, but thinking it has fucking anything at all to do with your volume or dimensions and not your mass/block count is sheer stupidity.

Schine has a flat out backwards idea of meta ship problems and instead of doing something that could potentially restrict meta ships they're further buffing them. This is a god damn useless experiment because it's not inverted requirements, there is nothing about this config that actually restricts meta ships more toward the dimensions of equivalent mass solidly built aesthetics based ships, and of course nothing that actually promotes the use of spacing specifically for interiors, just spacing in general, which we already have very strong defensive reasons to utilize it for.

Bricks & Cubes have never not been trash relatively speaking, you have no need to balance against trash that's already unfavorable in the first place and beyond literal cubes, the builds that will suffer for it are ones that constrain themselves within a discrete & well defined hull.

 

[Scypio]

Seeing as the old 3 axis power system is gone, the config here would actually push for shpere/cube ships even harder than the old power system did....

Just do it then if that's so broken.

Build a spheric or a cubic ship and you'll get rekt by any serious pvp player. Cubes and sphere are just big giant practice targets for anyone with a brain & decent ship.

 

[Dire Venom]

Just do it then if that's so broken.

Build a spheric or a cubic ship and you'll get rekt by any serious pvp player. Cubes and sphere are just big giant practice targets for anyone with a brain & decent ship.

Well said. Arrow shaped seems the best way to go, so you can get all weapons on your target and have all your armour stacked at the front of your ship.
[doublepost=1508031430,1508031111][/doublepost]Thanks for creating the config Lancake!
The way I like to approach the new ship is ratios.
What % of their ship do you guys feel should be dedicated to each system in a balanced ship:?
E.g
10% Reactor
10% Thrust
20% Weapons
30% Shields
10% Armour

~10% Left over for space/hangers/interior etc
What would be your idea ratios for each ship?
How is building with this new config?
How does it compare to the other Dev Config and the previous power system?
(Bearing in mind weapon power and other numbers are subject to change).

 

[Jojomo]

Just do it then if that's so broken.

Build a spheric or a cubic ship and you'll get rekt by any serious pvp player. Cubes and sphere are just big giant practice targets for anyone with a brain & decent ship.

So you'd be happy to agree with the statement that the shape of ships isn't driven (purely) by what is most efficient power-wise?

In that case there's really no need for anyone to panic about what they imagine the new power system will make ships look like, and we can drop the idea that this thread is based on.

The new power system isn't going to mean ugly ships (at least not any more than the current system).
[doublepost=1508035306,1508033499][/doublepost]

Well said. Arrow shaped seems the best way to go, so you can get all weapons on your target and have all your armour stacked at the front of your ship.

You know what shape the "official" new power system leans towards? Arrow.
One long axis, with bulk (chambers, secondary reactors, secondary stabilisers) around the aft end.

 

[Scypio]

Well said. Arrow shaped seems the best way to go, so you can get all weapons on your target and have all your armour stacked at the front of your ship.

Not exactly if i want to be more precise. Every types of shapes have their pros and cons, some have more cons than pros or the invert and that is up to the builder to choose wich one. For example a vertical ship use it's vertical axis as lenght, resulting in a really good turning rate compared to a horizontal ship. However you can't put as much blocs as a horizontal ship on front of your important blocs to protect the juicy stuff in case of a direct hit. I could litterally take hours speaking about this aspect of the game, wich is my prefered one but i'm not here to speak about this aspect as it seems that my talk about it during the power thread got forgotten.

So you'd be happy to agree with the statement that the shape of ships isn't driven (purely) by what is most efficient power-wise?

In that case there's really no need for anyone to panic about what they imagine the new power system will make ships look like, and we can drop the idea that this thread is based on.

Yes for the first sentence, no for the second. The new power system just encourage stick ship and nothing else, nobody is gonna add more internal space just because they can't put useful bloc to meet their power regen. You should simply forget everything about your sci-fi conception of ships. In starmade you don't have to build your ship in one big hull, you can have one box here and another part of it 2 km away. Same for turrets, they can be floating all around and not be attached to your hull.

While this is incredibly good for creativity you can't imagine how wrong that is when Schine comes up with this stupid rule that is : You have a given lentgh and you'll have this much power in this lenght. meaning that your ship's power will be defined by it's lenght. So what doesn't allow me to put my reactor far far away and the stabilizers as far away from the reactor ? Nothing and my 10k mass ship will have the power of a 3km titan because stabilizers and reactors are 3km away from each others. Then i put some weapons and chambers here and there, remember that you chambers still work if the pipes are destroyed so you just have to care about the chambers themselves, and here is your really light ship but with the power of a millions mass titan. Low mass ship, relatively little amount of thrusters to move it and so much power to dedicate to weapons that scale linearly. It is even better than the old power system as there is litterally no need to build continuous lines of power.

If you, Schine, want us to add interior's space, don't add stupid rules on top of everything hoping that it will just work like you intended. Just seriously add crew. It's not like every damn players have been asking for it for litterally years.

Also, i'll just add one last thing. You're just wrong about the optimised shape. Arrow ship are terrible when you can't face forward your opponent.