Beta systems reward redundancy

[MacThule]

Just an observation here soliciting any comments or discussion.

The new pre-beta systems seem to reward a degree of buffer or redundancy in design. Prime example is stabilizers; I can build a fully functional ship with 25% stabilization, but new weapons are extremely brutal on systems, so every random shot that pierces the hull has a good chance to degrade system function. I definitely like to shoot for at least 40-50% stabilization because I assume that my stabs will get hit and don't want to lose substantial power from nothing more than a few pot shots. Chambers are the same - they have a cut-off point of minimum blocks, but I've stopped designing them to the minimum, instead building with at least a 10-20% buffer so that when minor damage affects them they don't instantly shut down.

Excess has become robustness, rather than waste, so there is no longer an issue of trimming every inch of fat from systems. The fat makes ships a bit tougher.

I like it. Anyone else observing this or have other thoughts on it?

 

[GnomeKing]

no longer an issue of trimming every inch of fat from systems

I agree to an extent - 1.0power did allow a lot of fun/function, even with the 'excess',

However when the goal was an ultimate min-max-death-boat, 'fat-trimming' was obsessive, worked within very narrow ranges, and (worst of all) produced a min-max-arm race....or just left a few min-max-Uber-Gits destroying everything on a server.

Sweet spots were narrow in range and not very pleasing to build with (e.g. system-bricks), also encouraging exploit-ships to squeeze out every last drop of max.

And for sure, the system meant redundancy and over-capacity had few benefits > without much of a meta-game, designs must ask the sobering question "will this ship survive on its own against an prospective-super-git?", and adjust any narrative/role-play accordingly (or simply not bother...).

Redundancy and over-capacity are tricky and contextual terms (extra-thrusters for hauling exceptional cargo for example) >>>

But for sure COMBAT-systems-redundancy in Power 1.0 very (too?) quickly resulted in destruction against strongly min-maxed opponents (Gits or not) - (not to forget that there were also decent fights against ships of similar caliber)

Power 2.0 seems to have a wider bracket for what non-combat blocks a ship can mount before it is eventually dominated by a more focused combat ship (as it should always be) . But I am not so sure that Power 2.0 does much to expand the design of combat-ships themselves.(i suppose heat/cold/fungal 'damage-values' might add a small bit)

Power 2.0 is has potential to be a really interesting system to build with... if only some more design-complexity were put in it ... but it does not solve all the issues found in StarMade under earlier iterations.

The Weapons Dev/Prebuild is however (IMO), a mess - particularly because design options are fewer and in many ways dumber

 

[DeepspaceMechanic]

Chambers are the same - they have a cut-off point of minimum blocks, but I've stopped designing them to the minimum, instead building with at least a 10-20% buffer so that when minor damage affects them they don't instantly shut down.

Without any testing or caring too much about systems, it occurred to me as well that while the old effect systems used to provide bonuses in percentages (and only lost from this number when they lost modules), the new chambers might just stop producing any effect at all when they're damaged below the minimum number of blocks.

Thank you for confirming this. I planned to test this before refitting my latest CC resource (a station), the only thing I built so far that has chambers. (But since they decreased the reactor size:chamber size ratio to half, I have a whole lot of desirable redundancy there.)

 

[God mode]

Chambers are the same - they have a cut-off point of minimum blocks, but I've stopped designing them to the minimum, instead building with at least a 10-20% buffer so that when minor damage affects them they don't instantly shut down.

This is not the case. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it is. Chambers continue to function even when completely destroyed.

 

[MacThule]

This is not the case. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it is. Chambers continue to function even when completely destroyed.

Because in past testing, when I have sustained damage, I have ended up with chambers that do not work.

 

[Edymnion]

Because in past testing, when I have sustained damage, I have ended up with chambers that do not work.

Hmmmm... chambers are supposed to maintain their effect for a few minutes after being damaged to prevent expensive recalculations during combat. If you're seeing immediate, in-combat changes, that might be a bug.

 

[Nosajimiki]

I personally find chambers to be too heavy and expensive to be worth buffering, even if the lose was instant. Most shots that dig deep enough to hit chambers will either be heavy alpha weapons that will likely cause more damage than I buffered anyway or it will be a smaller shot that happens so late in the fight I'm already screwed anyway.

I think it's more important to be smart about where you put your chambers. For example, if you are mobility/FTL speced, use mobility to guard your FTL so that if your reactor starts taking hits, you don't have to fly home under impulse.

 

[Fays]

I've put redundancy in my 'logic bricks' as ID-10-t fail safes... hadn't occurred to me to do similar with chamber buffering... niiifty

 

[MacThule]

Hmmmm... chambers are supposed to maintain their effect for a few minutes after being damaged to prevent expensive recalculations during combat. If you're seeing immediate, in-combat changes, that might be a bug.

I think I just never thought to drop chamber buffers after they put in the system failure delay, assuming that even if failure is delayed, having a tiny buffer wouldn't hurt in terms of improving the chances of systems remaining functional after combat (say after victor with light damage sustained).

 

[Tsnonak]

Notable observation!

+1