Altered reactor config

    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Yes for the first sentence, no for the second.
    If shape isn't driven (only) by power efficiency (which you agree is the case), then it doesn't follow to then say that ships with the new system will be sticks. As with the old system, their shape will be determined by a variety of factors, and won't simply be the shape of best power efficiency.

    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.
    I didn't say that was an optimised shape, Dire Venom did.
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    621
    Reaction score
    448
    I didn't say that was an optimised shape, Dire Venom did.
    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.
    You're just contradicting yourself here. Arrow shape ship sucks, that's just it and there is nothing wrong about admiting you're wrong.

    If shape isn't driven (only) by power efficiency (which you agree is the case), then it doesn't follow to then say that ships with the new system will be sticks. As with the old system, their shape will be determined by a variety of factors, and won't simply be the shape of best power efficiency.
    You're just bending my words to match your opinion here. Nothing in the systems blocs is efficient in this or that shape, except power. You can make a ball of weapons modules or whatever you want it'll still do the same damage as long as the bloc count is the same.

    I agreed that shape isn't only driven by the power system, player's taste matter a lot as well as the ability of the ship to be able to take hits. That is the current state of starmade ship building. Nothing else matter except your power, wich is driven by an axis and only one. This statement is even more ridiculous with the new power system.

    But wait, there is more ! A stick ship is even better than an arrow ship, even if it's continuous. Why ? Because it holds more power than the arrow shaped build if you compare their mass. It even takes hit better than any other ship due to it's ridiculous width and height, meaning you'll dodge more shots. And we all know that dodging is better than tanking in starmade. You can even make empty space between boxes of system to make your ennemy waste more shots on "nothing".

    Sticks were already the best way to build, the new power system is just making it even worse due to the stabilizers mechanics. And probably the only way to build something interesting in term of combats now.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    You're just contradicting yourself here. Arrow shape ship sucks, that's just it and there is nothing wrong about admiting you're wrong.
    I've made no comment on how "arrow" shaped ships perform compared to others whatsoever, and I have no plans to.

    If you’ll check the link in the OP to the original thread, and read the OP in that thread, you'll see that the discussion we're having was born from a concern about how ships will look.

    You're just bending my words to match your opinion here. Nothing in the systems blocs is efficient in this or that shape, except power.
    And the only efficiency I've mentioned has been power.

    I agreed that shape isn't only driven by the power system, player's taste matter a lot as well as the ability of the ship to be able to take hits.
    Which lets us reasonably conclude that the new power system won't result in SM servers being populated by "stick" or "dumbbell" ships (just like the current power system doesn't mean we're now surrounded by cubes). The fears we're discussing are unfounded.

    Sticks were already the best way to build, the new power system is just making it even worse due to the stabilizers mechanics.
    In that case, the new power systems won't be making even minmaxed ships look any worse than the current system. Again, the fear of "ugly ships" due to the new system aren't realistic.
     
    Joined
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages
    895
    Reaction score
    165
    Just seriously add crew. It's not like every damn players have been asking for it for litterally years.
    Yes, why don't you do it already, Schema. Yesterday.

    You know, things do require time to implement, it's not like anybody could snip their fingers and tap their hat and it's done. You can't build a house from the roof down, and you can't just build a game that's complete without laying the groundwork first. And if only a few people are building a house, it is obviously going to take longer than when hundreds are working on it. It's Schine's choice, willing or by necessity, and if things take too long for you, there's other stuff to do while waiting.
     
    Joined
    Jul 10, 2013
    Messages
    626
    Reaction score
    486
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    Wouldn't it be nice if crew was acting as stabilizer and chamber ?
     
    Joined
    Jul 4, 2013
    Messages
    124
    Reaction score
    20
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    Lancake I think you're missing the point. The main reason some people (me included) don't like new power concept, because you're forcing on us certain design pattern for no reason. Let me quote my own youtube comment "They should get rid of distance limitation and add pros and cons to have stabilizers close or far. For instance, closer stabilizers will limit amount of power storage and boost generation rate, farer stabilizers will limit generation rate and boost the amount of power storage."
     

    Benevolent27

    Join the Dark Side
    Joined
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages
    585
    Reaction score
    327
    • Purchased!
    Lancake I think you're missing the point. The main reason some people (me included) don't like new power concept, because you're forcing on us certain design pattern for no reason. Let me quote my own youtube comment "They should get rid of distance limitation and add pros and cons to have stabilizers close or far. For instance, closer stabilizers will limit amount of power storage and boost generation rate, farer stabilizers will limit generation rate and boost the amount of power storage."
    I think this might sound good "in theory," but it doesn't really make sense does it?

    I still think there should be MULTIPLE power types allowed. The focus should not be on creating one new power system, but rather allowing multiple to exist with the modding backbone in place. Create 1 "basic power reactor" using this modding system to serve as an example to modders and also to make the game playable. Then let the other modders change how this block works, and/or make other types of reactors to run the experiments. The key is allowing as much customizability and duplication as possible. Players can then try playing with various configurations and the community will essentially decide what it likes best. Schine has a small development team, they would do well to let modders be the ones to make the mistakes and to farm great ideas from them.

    Here is my ideal:
    - Multiple power types - so only certain weapons or systems can use different kinds of power. Think alien races.
    - Mods that introduce blocks that can do energy conversion, with certain costs, so you can build hybrid ships.
    - Various kinds of reactors that have different rules about their usage, from space requirements, to heat dissapation, to radiation that kills astronauts if they get too close, to systems interruptions (ion reactors), to solar power generating blocks that produce more energy when closer to a star (probably more useful for bases that are positioned near a star). All of these would also have various kinds of scaling, so some may be more useful as large reactor groups, while others work better with smaller groups. Some may use fuel, while others serve as a continuous power source, such as a hydrogen fuel cell <-- but for all of these, the devs should not be the ones to implement them. The devs should think of what kind of power backbone is necessary so that they CAN be added as mods. And then expand that system as the modding community requests. For instance, the mechanic of having explosions occur from stabilizer blocks that are a certain distance from the main reactor blocks would be good.. but now give these properties to all block types.. So, for example, other kinds of systems might be given an increased chance of exploding if too close to a nuclear reactor.. or whatever the modding community decides should happen. Then these ideas will live or die by their merits.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    621
    Reaction score
    448
    In that case, the new power systems won't be making even minmaxed ships look any worse than the current system.
    If that is okay for you and Schine then stays with the dev build like it is currently. I got nothing to add to that.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Lancake I think you're missing the point. The main reason some people (me included) don't like new power concept, because you're forcing on us certain design pattern for no reason. Let me quote my own youtube comment "They should get rid of distance limitation and add pros and cons to have stabilizers close or far. For instance, closer stabilizers will limit amount of power storage and boost generation rate, farer stabilizers will limit generation rate and boost the amount of power storage."
    Possibly you're in the wrong thread then.
    This thread here is in response to another thread which is about concern over how ships will look with power 2.0.
     

    Ithirahad

    Arana'Aethi
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages
    4,150
    Reaction score
    1,329
    • Purchased!
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Yes, why don't you do it already, Schema. Yesterday.

    You know, things do require time to implement, it's not like anybody could snip their fingers and tap their hat and it's done. You can't build a house from the roof down, and you can't just build a game that's complete without laying the groundwork first. And if only a few people are building a house, it is obviously going to take longer than when hundreds are working on it. It's Schine's choice, willing or by necessity, and if things take too long for you, there's other stuff to do while waiting.
    Yeah, but they could have added the crew systems first, so that we at least have a better idea as to what that system's space requirements are... Rebalancing systems after that would make a little more sense. If they needed the chamber effect system to be up and running for crew bonuses to function, then that's fine... But once that system is implemented, it wouldn't've been all that hard to add a number of provisional passive effect computers and modules, instead of an entirely new reactor/chamber system.
     
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages
    1,362
    Reaction score
    268
    Fundamental issue with balancing this game:

    Not all the core systems are present, or so we (The players) assume. Get crew in there, universe update, whatever there is to add, and then see what must be balanced. It could be that using the old power system, adding crew would've made everything perfect and nothing would've needed to change (This is statistically and realistically unlikely, but it's the idea that matters) because the interior space Schine wanted so badly would've occurred naturally.

    Attempting to manipulate systems in the name of balance NOW is a terrible plan, because it's like trying to use a scale to balance two groups of items when some of them are still missing. You'll NEVER figure it out.
     

    Benevolent27

    Join the Dark Side
    Joined
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages
    585
    Reaction score
    327
    • Purchased!
    Fundamental issue with balancing this game:

    Not all the core systems are present, or so we (The players) assume. Get crew in there, universe update, whatever there is to add, and then see what must be balanced. It could be that using the old power system, adding crew would've made everything perfect and nothing would've needed to change (This is statistically and realistically unlikely, but it's the idea that matters) because the interior space Schine wanted so badly would've occurred naturally.

    Attempting to manipulate systems in the name of balance NOW is a terrible plan, because it's like trying to use a scale to balance two groups of items when some of them are still missing. You'll NEVER figure it out.
    So, essentially what you are saying is that how power should be provided to a ship can and will change as the game is more and more completed?

    So.. might this require a customizable power system?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Mordrin
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Well it looks like specific discussion on the config in the OP has well and truly finished.
    Conversation has just devolved to general discussion on power 2.0
     
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages
    1,362
    Reaction score
    268
    Technically a mention of how power is probably in-balanceable at this stage is on-topic. Mostly.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,107
    Reaction score
    1,228
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    The amount of people who think that "compact" ships are the meta and that we need explosive systems to fix it is astounding. The fact that the DEVS think this is the meta is extremely concerning.

    Explosive systems will encourage further spaghettification. Don't do it. It's just stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding of how the meta actually works.
     
    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    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.
    This.

    They could even implement a temporary quarters system as a place holder. Create an invisible, massless block, the quantity of which, relative to the block count of the ship, defines the number of chambers you can have on your ship. Create a proximity mechanic that rewards having largish groupings of them in close proximity to chambers to avoid spaghetti. Boom, we now have interior space and a reward mechanism to encourage it. Not everyone will bother to decorate those interiors, but at least RPers who create such interiors won't be penalized for non-solid ships.

    I would much prefer Lancake's suggestion over stabilizer distance. I likely will always lament the passing of the old system in which I could spend days planing details of how to squeeze more power into a design, but this simplicity is vastly preferable to the forced, length equals power philosophy of the current 2.0.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lord Daro

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,709
    Reaction score
    1,512
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    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.
    Hey, I'd just like to take a minute to say thanks for trying this out. Really makes the "Schine doesn't listen to us!" people look bad, like they should.

    So yeah, thanks for taking the time to publicly try out alternatives.