Blueprinting power 3.0; idea compilation; workshop

    Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by NeonSturm, Jan 4, 2019.

    1. NeonSturm

      NeonSturm StormMaker

      Dec 31, 2013
      Intro notes:

      This thread introduces the tags "idea compilation" and "workshop".
      The thread topic is Power 3.0 and satisfaction of peoples looking back to 1.0 power stripes with all mechanics available and invented for it.

      Forked idea from and personal considerations on it over a longer time.


      The bigger that thing is, the more crew the ship has, the more the complexity is spread to more and more human/NPC brains and the higher the capacity of complexity. Additional complexity is then rewarding thing, because you wouldn'T add complexity if it doesn't give a bonus.
      (insert thread link here:


      Thus, I would (in Schema's position) enable SM.code to grow simple and more and more complex reactor patterns. Each layer of complexity is designed to enable at a certain block count.

      Theoretically, you can describe the effect with:
      There would be block count segments on the "block-count vs effectiveness"-graph which are very effective, rather ineffective and where previous and next complexity overlaps or is separated by a gap.

      Practially, you had something more intuitive:

      Reactors are meant to be built in the 4:3:5 format. A bit squeezed in high to fit into less ship floors in high and a bit longer than a box so that the builder has choices in rotating it.

      You can rotate them anyway you like, but a Cube will never give the bonus of a 4:3:5 shape, because it is missing 60% volume, mostly face-shapes reducing effectiveness by up to 40%.
      Perfect cubes like 3:3:3 would be expanded to a 4:3:5 modell for evaluation of output.
      Elongnated versions cannot fit additional boxes around the reaction-bubble left and give 80% .

      Then, you do not build from a core outward, but from the hollow reactor box which shape counts inward. The more complexity you can add to the increasing depth, the more choices you have.

      Picking best choices would usually give rewards over multiple small reactors.

      Going into details:
      Each "layer" may be "1", "2" or "more" blocks thick and react to fill% on theoretical corner%, edge%, side%. Effects:
      1. There is a block ID list to be placed in corners to define layer type which add rather a big fill % up to 8* 5% = 40% (or transfer 20% to edge blocks, but I thought corners should be expensive and thus you should get something for your mass/raw-materials).
      2. There is a block ID list to be placed in edges, depending on corner blocks. They add fill% between 0..20% (they are rather cheap, like cannon modules vs computers which sit in corners).
      3. For faces, use edge blocks to archive 20% filling, 80% total. Or use special face-type-blocks for double amount reaching 100% (they are for counting covered area of that layer's side).

      Last, some Face-Blocks are misssing, to allow pipes outward.
      Face-Blocks only make up 40% to compensate for real-world applications would be smaller.
      These pipes have a thickness which reduces effectiveness-loss by (30..80)%*thicknessdiff per layer. Thicknessdiff is (5-3)/5 or (9-7)/9 (new minus old value % from the new).

      You have your reaction chamber, producing a range of em, heat, pressure, etc.
      Then there is a layer altering it.
      Usually reducing heat and add electric charge at the cost of thermal difference in comparision to absolute-Zero at over minus 200 degree which supports usable conversion ratio%.

      From this layer there is an electrical pipe going outward which has 40% effectiveness loss, but one cover layer reduces it to 5% already, so it's a 1x1, 3+3 cross or 3x3 pipe independent of reactor size.

      In bigger builds, there is a EM-absoption layer, which reduces the 95% em radiation escaping the first layer to 5%, converting it to power at 40% and 60% to heat. Or by choice, you can redirect that EM-field or Heat to weapons or shield generators.

      That EM/Heat pipe has 80% loss and loss is multiplied by 60% per layer. The 60% reduction diminishes with additional layers depending on the size change by adding a layer.
      Heat pipes transfer Heat-Energy, yes.
      But while electrical and EM energy is instantly usable, heat energy distributes over volume and to use it, you need to offset it. This means that the first 200-400 degree do nothing and then it gradually increases depending on degree difference. Like gaussian normal distribution betwen reactor core heat and pipe heat or pipe heat and heat demand.

      EM is just unusable with connection via pipes - opt in to get better min-max results.
      Heat has additional rules to it - opt in to get better min-max results.

      If a pipe reaches the outer reactor box, all electricty becomes global at 60% value exchange ratio.

      Connecting pipes to weapons or thruster modules bypass that bad exchange ratio.

      Connecting EM-pipes to shields or jump drive bypasses energy conversion ratio loss in layers.

      Connecting heat can re-use waste heat, but the required pipes are really big, so you may only want to use it for main application and forfeit the bonus for additonal side-applications.

      Sound too complex?
      I hope everything can be designed as opt-in.

      Basic reactor would be a hollow box with some lava in it.
      Advanced reactor would have a hollow box, some shells growing smaller and smaller, a few pipes going through the hollow box and some layer shells and lava in the middle.

      Super-advanced reactors replace lava with water for fusion reactions and add a fusor completely enclosed by water blocks filling a rectangle.

      Perhaps, we introduce alloyed layers (different corner or edge blocks) in the future.
      I hope this last description makes imagination easier.

      Before I post this in suggestions, I have a few improvements to make.

      I need exact numbers.
      I need example pictures.
      I need input on bad/good sides.

      Only then, can my suggestion be a quality-suggestion peoples just appreciate without spaming complains or saying "too difficult to understand".

      Who wants to push that idea through by making it something developers pull from?

      EDIT: chambers may still be a thing, build in a similar fashion, further refining energetic products delivered by pipes. Modulating EM freqency to get a holofield-supporting energy, etc.
      #1 NeonSturm, Jan 4, 2019
      Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
    2. Tsnonak

      Tsnonak Let's_Kautsch!

      Dec 14, 2014
      I would say: interesting idea, but seems like just another "build limitation" forcing certain designs...

      Power 3.0?... not another power update ruining everybodies work...

      Personally I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment...
      Schine is working on the Universe update, I seriously doubt they will break from this to redo power again...
      Based on some other Ideas with Lava-heat-boxes... I doubt it, but i could of course be wrong (highly unlikely though).
      It sounds like your opening a can of worms..
      It also sounds even more complex than what we have now...

      Maybe one day in the distant future there will be more ideas and/or optimizations to the power-systems...
      Power 2.0 isn't really that hard or bad, or too complex, it just needs some optimization and balancing, (but thats just my opinion).

      P.S. no pun intended, just think you're off in the wrong direction with this. ;)
      #2 Tsnonak, Jan 4, 2019
      Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
      • Like Like x 2
    3. wanzer

      Jun 1, 2015
      wait there actually people that seriously build a ship on system 2.0? dies..
      --- Updated post (merge), Jan 4, 2019, Original Post Date: Jan 4, 2019 ---
      but with all respect
      no matter what shape ship I have
      if it isn't a stick its pointless
      • Like Like x 2
    4. Tsnonak

      Tsnonak Let's_Kautsch!

      Dec 14, 2014

      alive and well, lots of updated stuff...

      did you not notice?

      --- Updated post (merge), Jan 4, 2019, Original Post Date: Jan 4, 2019 ---
      this is, like, so untrue, maybe from your perspective...
    5. wanzer

      Jun 1, 2015
      well I tried to build a merlin like in eve online
      but I cant separate the power core far enough from the stabilizers
      unless I squeeze the core in one wing and the stabilizer in the opposite wing but then I have lack of space to cramp in enough reactor to get a decent output
      if I keep continue to fill the wings toward each other they get to close and inefficient

      having the core at the center of the ship leaves even less space between the power core and stabilizers

      making these X shaped crosses around the core also doesn't work
    6. OfficialCoding

      OfficialCoding Currently Fleet Building

      Nov 8, 2017
      You think?
    7. NeonSturm

      NeonSturm StormMaker

      Dec 31, 2013
      Everyone, Thanks for input.

      Stabilizers are a broken mechanic. The worst part of power 2.0.
      They are not broken if you know how to abuse axis setups to gain better ships than those unexperienced builders...
      ... but you will still get a ship built around the shape of these, forced to have a certain width/height/length ratio to stay effective.

      Power 1.0 (the original) turned my ship to spagetty when I wanted permanent cloak and jam possible. Not again either!

      OfficialCodingOfficialCoding : I often hear that for suggestions I make, I make something huge and have to cut least important pieaces off until it fits 1-2 screens.

      These layers are not overly complex. I it is like this:
      . . . . 8
      . . . .+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 10
      . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /|
      . . ./ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / |

      . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. |
      . ./ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / . |

      . / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /- - +
      6/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. . /

      + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +. . /
      | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . /
      | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |. /
      | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | /
      | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |/
      + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

      Easy to build around. Every complexity grows inward.

      Ofcourse peoples will try to build Borg-Cubes again, forcing the innocent community members to accept some shit upon them again which aims to punish the offenders, but punishes us all.

      To counter, try to make reactor in middle, put weapons at rear and engines at front, to get 3 segments and a long-cube ... wait, not a cube anymore. If weapons get shot down by anyone chasing you, detach them and use as mines while escaping with lesser weight.
      Your engines at front are shielding your reactor in case of assaulting a base and make your weapons life long enough to archive your objective.

      Then, you have these 3 boxes, totalling in: 30 length, 8 width and 6 height.
      Totally a Borg-Cube, isn't it? With improved hit-area toward the target.
    8. Zoolimar

      Aug 14, 2017
      A lot of words about how to build a single reactor. Are you proposing to move all the systems to something like this or just the reactor? And if just the reactor than why?

      From my point of ability to have multiple active reactors would be enough.
      Having conduits between all system parts and from reactors to the main system would be glorious.
      Chambers being instead components of their respective systems would be divine.
      • Like Like x 1
    9. Captain Fortius

      Aug 10, 2013
      Saying something is easy won't actually make it easy.
      Your opening post is hella long, and the idea is very complicated, as most of your posts tend to be. And you manage to inflict hundreds of them on the forum while I make two.
      Your post count is above 5000, and I'd have to struggle to find anything of actual worth amidst those lexicons of nothingness.

      I see that you try really hard to come up with ideas. Even go overboard with formatting your posts, but the words themselves are a jumble.

      After so many such posts, it'd be time to reflect on your abilities for a while.
      I don't pretend I can revolutionize brain surgery practices, as quite frankly I know nothing about the subject.
      You should realize your own shortcomings and stop trying to revolutionize every random aspect of Starmade, as you are genuinely bad at it, and can only end up hurting the game if your advice is ever taken seriously.

      Honestly, at this point I'll have to start to regard your activity as an exotic form of trolling.
      • Like Like x 1
    10. NeonSturm

      NeonSturm StormMaker

      Dec 31, 2013
      My opening post is 1.5 screens for me - much less than the update-blog-post from shine staff about 2.0.

      My post count is divided among 5 years - perhaps 3 a day on average, spiking at 10.
      Some are only "your post is good" or something like that. Not compared to this one at all.
      Others are answers to specifics another one could have given too. Maybe you aren't usually helpful avoiding such post-counts - dunno.

      And finally, you say lexicons of nothingness?
      Maybe you compare them too much to a specific persons highlights rather than their overall content.
      Perhaps it's truly some time ago my last idea was genue.
      @CaptainFortius I rather have the feeling that we aren't the same wavelength - like 2 puzzle pieces trying to fit together.

      Fact is:
      Starmade is the only game I know which has such good level of logic.
      But it's broken at some point to waste most of it's potential - dynamic logic block generated content isn't stored in display blocks properly.

      Starmade supports the biggest ship shells. Yes, the biggest shells.
      But to no point it supports toilets, beds, toaster, oven - the things I have in my daily household. I know this is about to come.

      What is the difference between a 1950 car and a car from 2010 (e-cars aside)? A cheap and an expensive car?
      Better fuel injection, gps, termal insulation, ... For expensive: Bigger motor stuffed under a smaller hood, turboloader, ...
      It's these things I want on ships too.
      I want cheap versions, military sturdy and rich peoples extravagant versions and custom builds for a purpose intially not supported.

      I try to archive that by bringing up a idea which can be taken 1:1 into game.
      Not something which has to be refined before it is taken into game.

      Ofcourse you can still build your chambers and stabilizers, but I see them different - I would try balance their initial heritage before changing them.
      - with the inital idea of them being like heatsinks or co-reactors which allow output along one reactor and then they changed the name, make them work a bit differently because of balance and there they are.
      What is the difference between the motors of audi, daimler, opel, vw, ...?
      Nuclear reactors were even more different.

      The chambers would be similar, but not equal, to all other parts under the hood - battery, cooling etc.
      --- Updated post (merge), Jan 6, 2019, Original Post Date: Jan 6, 2019 ---
      I wholeheartly agree.

      But I guess not everyone thinks like that and with FTL there are problems.

      First, we have no FTL-blocks anymore but a FTL-buff chamber. Adds an extra level of tinkering how it's done for that one.
      I see the chambers as secondary reactors for specific systems.
      Can be improved, for example by allowing up to 4 reactors or even 8 on bigger ships (min mass/volume for num reactors)
      But then shine need to rethink their whole chamber-balance.

      (this) Power 3.0 may not make it into a standard unless it's played by some servers.
      but to be played, it first needs to be made available.

      Optimally, Shine / Schema would do the mod-option so we can check if the shape is existent on a ship and how many which type of these shapes (including edge/corner/face blocks of layers, pipe composition and touched systems).

      Then we can write rules to make up a balance. Test it out. Report results. Convince them for official support.

      Every system (shield capacitors, rechargers, weapons) can then be built like this.
      Lava or something else as core and layers to optimize.
      PD weapons would often have no layers and maybe smaller turrets not either. But a static mounted main gun facing forward only would.
    11. nulitor

      Oct 8, 2016
      Anything that involves lava gets my support.
      Maybe lava works in the XYZ maxing per group fashion but you would also place a lava core(that would cost a lot) for the lava that boosts efficiency of close lava so that when lava is too far from the lava core it becomes less efficient thus encouraging minimum space maximum lava but not full shapes(and you could use lava without lava core as powergen but it would have very low efficiency)
      Then you could add stabilizers in the power 2.0 fashion to improve further the powergen(but making it more vulnerable due to the beam).
      However I think that stuff involving npcs moving around increase collision calculations and so are a bad thing for performances.
      #11 nulitor, Jan 14, 2019
      Last edited: Jan 14, 2019