Coolant? Coolant. Coolin' it.

[Billazilla]

I had this idea, and checked the forums and literally Sildaran posts his thread about reactors and coolant devices just last night. Well, crap...

But still! I had an alternate idea for a coolant system in mind, one that focuses purely on a coolant system as its own thing. I propose the conversion of the decorative Conduit block into a functional one, specifically as a convector block for a coolant system. A Thermal Systems computer block would be needed for system management and appropriate slaving, of course, and I would also suggest this new system uses the same functional rules as the existing power systems, where volume of the system yields greater efficiency than block quantity. This creates a similar level of design urgency, and also fits the system concept, as a greater surface area of the system would suggest greater heat dissipation. The system would require a constant power supply to operate, toggled from the weapons menu like any other system. As a support system it can be utilized in a number of ways, which I shall get into RIGHT NOW!

1. Power systems support -- At this time the idea of a hard cap does seem to irk a few people. But installing a coolant system as its own un-slaved ship/station support system could provide a softer power cap within the logic of the Starmade universe. I'm suggesting that after a certain size/power generation level is reached (mathematically defined), that the reactor blocks will build heat. If this heat grows past a certain temp, the blocks will start randomly taking damage in small amounts, then in larger quantities, and eventually an overpowered, under-cooled system could damage itself to the point where reactor blocks destroy themselves. Setting the damage point above a calculated level will allow for smaller ships to be constructed without bulking them out, as a small power system should self-cool. Once you reach the larger levels of power generation for bigger ships, you should have a comparably huge cooling system installed to keep the reactors from burning out. It is one more thing to add to the complexity of shipbuilding, but it has three (and a half) points of interest:
   • Adds realistic, flexible limits to power systems that can have restrictions, allowing expansions of design and power capability without requiring docked generators.
   • Loosen the hard cap on a single ship build, as long as one provides the appropriate support. This could lead to very little change in the raw design of larger ships, as many of them have filler blocks or less-than-meticulously-optimized designs in their systems, so fitting a coolant system inside your vessel without changing its appearance or layout shouldn't be too hard.
   • Loosening that hard cap comes with a price: system vulnerability. If you manage to sufficiently damage a coolant system to the point it cannot cope with the heat generation, the afflicted ship would start losing power as reactor modules burnt out. This can become a critical weak point if not accounted for, as the coolant system requires power to stabilize the power system it is cooling, but if the power system overheats and begins breaking down past the point where it can support the coolant system, then the coolant system will shut down entirely, and the heat build up will grow unchecked, and at that point a system could completely burn itself out... leading to the condition currently labelled as OVERHEATING... Ha! See, it works with the game mechanics! Additionally, EMP weapons gain new strength, because if you manage to shut down power long enough on a large ship, the ship could damage itself through overheating. Again, this has a variable viability based on the design of the ship's systems, and whether your design is threatened by a temporary power loss.
   • This provides an option addition of a new weapon-damage type: Temperature, wherein existing weapons (Perhaps beam, or pulse?) or a new weapon type could cause heat build-up to cripple a ship. But honestly I leave that topic for another thread to avoid derailing. Just an optional thought.
2. Weapon support -- A coolant system slaved to a weapon system should increase its energy efficiency, instead of damage, speed, or range. Slaving a coolant system to a weapon computer would reduce the power cost to fire to a limited effect, perhaps 20-30%, with diminishing effect vs. size. The calculations on this would have to be figured out in order to make this option work, as you would want the coolant system's benefit to outweigh the addition of a slaved system to the weapon, at least to that reasonably approachable point. The balance of this usage would be the taking up of the slaved effect slot of the weapon. You could make a very efficient artillery cannon that does not need as huge a power system, but you would have to forego the Ion, Punch or Overdrive support for the cannon that you might normally have used. Effectively, it should be used to shrink the blocks, energy, and mass required to use the weapon installed, allowing better weapons on smaller ships at the cost of the versatility of other effect subsystems. Like power system support, this functionality will find better use in ships as they grow larger. On a tiny fighter it would probably not be worth the effort for the block/mass cost.
3. Environmental effect management -- This is a smaller point, but an un-slaved coolant system could also provide resistance to the damage inflicted by solar proximity.
4. Jump drive support -- Another minor idea: Linking a coolant system to a jump drive could work in the same fashion as weapon support; It would decrease the energy cost for the drive with about the same ratio of effect.
5. Cloaking support -- If you've played Mass Effect, you can see what I'm getting at here... A cooling system linked to a cloaking computer could extend the duration of the cloak. Like power systems, this could unlock the ruthless power requirements of cloaking while still provide a reasonable limitation on it, which naturally should still be prohibitive, but now more flexible at the cost of adding another system to your ship design. Coming out of a cooled cloaking effect could cause your ship indicator to flash for a few seconds on other people's radar, indicating the heat-exhaust resulting from the cloaking effect, and actually making you more visible on radar for at least a couple of seconds. Another smaller idea.
6. Manufacturing support -- One more smaller idea: linking a cooling system to a factory could speed its production rate, but I think this idea would probably be redundant with the quantity increases provided by factory enhancers. Just throwing it out there.

Also, Rebooting a ship with a coolant system would shut the system down, but the reactors would lose heat at a regular rate while the reboot occurs. A bad overheat would still have some residual heat left in the system on restart, but would be a good bit lower than when the reboot is initiated.

Whaddaya think? I have no idea how the equations to calculate this would work out, but I had to get the concept out there. Have I qualified as a blithering numbskull yet?

 

[FatCobra]

Ok this is a very good idea similar to a concept I've been mulling around in my head for a while. I hadn't thought about slaving it to other systems as well. My thought was keep the cap as is for the current reactor and add a second power supply that takes more space but prduces much more power and requires some sort of active cooling. I think I like yours better though.

 

[lilheartless]

the only problem with this is it puts us in a catch 22 you literally take up a new block id and remove a decortive block aka (increase its mass to that of a system block) all so that people don't have to use docked reactors to get extra power, however this brings in new vulnerabilities to a ship so if the new system isn't better in every way people won't use it because they have another option, if the system is better in every way it will be a straight up buff to power generation which i'm not entirely sure is needed, If the system is statistically worse than docked reactors and docked reactors get nerfed/disabled people will cry because a system that is already hard to maintain just got more difficult.

This all ties in with a bunch of issues starmade has when it comes to combat / balance really like for instance since all weapons effectively have the same dps and they all scale linearly what point is there in transfering your shields or energy to another ship basically because all weapons are the same you having power supply beams for what they are intended for is actually a detriment to any fleet because you are sending energy at a deficit when you could have used all of that energy to do the same amount of damage another ship could have done with the full amount.

Or what purpose do small ships serve when they cannot use their agility to actually out maneuver a larger ship.

Or why are all the weapons homogenized to the point where it doesn't really matter what you use as long as you can aim cause they all do the same damage.

anyways just some thoughts i had on the matter.

 

[BDLS]

I think it's a neat idea to help ease the soft cap at additional cost and mass.

Still love calbiris old idea of a power reactor type block that explodes when taken out, like a warhead but less damage overall. One with a flat rate higher than the 25 a reactor gives you past the softcap.

More power for badass systems at the expensive of new vulnerabilities, how a capital ship should be.

But that rambling aside, coolant would be cool. I'm personally always down for more complex engineering that can be done.

 

[Billazilla]

the only problem with this is it puts us in a catch 22 you literally take up a new block id and remove a decortive block aka (increase its mass to that of a system block) all so that people don't have to use docked reactors to get extra power, however this brings in new vulnerabilities to a ship so if the new system isn't better in every way people won't use it because they have another option, if the system is better in every way it will be a straight up buff to power generation which i'm not entirely sure is needed, If the system is statistically worse than docked reactors and docked reactors get nerfed/disabled people will cry because a system that is already hard to maintain just got more difficult.

This all ties in with a bunch of issues starmade has when it comes to combat / balance really like for instance since all weapons effectively have the same dps and they all scale linearly what point is there in transfering your shields or energy to another ship basically because all weapons are the same you having power supply beams for what they are intended for is actually a detriment to any fleet because you are sending energy at a deficit when you could have used all of that energy to do the same amount of damage another ship could have done with the full amount.

Or what purpose do small ships serve when they cannot use their agility to actually out maneuver a larger ship.

Or why are all the weapons homogenized to the point where it doesn't really matter what you use as long as you can aim cause they all do the same damage.

anyways just some thoughts i had on the matter.

You speak truth, so I'll try to explain myself better. (I've been told I leave out details sometimes.)

I had a conversation back in the 90's when I was part of the coding crew for an old MUD. I had just proposed a new class of character for people to play that had very powerful abilities at the sacrifice of stat points, which at the time were quite difficult to obtain. I was asked why would players give up stats in return for powerful abilities and equipment, why not just give them the abilities like the other guilds and let it at that.

My main point in creating the guild for the players was balance. The other three guilds were not balanced. Each one gave the player an max-power weapon or spell, a stunlock-type ability, and an awesome, body-covering armor. I gave my players many different weapons, none of them ultimate, but all of them with tricks or abilities, and also allowed them to choose any other weapon to use with equal skill. I gave them no stunlock, instead I granted them an assortment of companion animals to support them. I gave them several pieces of very good armor, but forbid them to wear chest armor, the biggest protect part they could wear, as their powers stemmed from tattoos they wore which must be touched to activate. Each item and each ability cost them precious stat points, but at the same time, they could earn those points back if they kept playing. They were clever versatile warrior versions of the Glass Cannon concept, and my players loved it, and thanked me for making it for them. One of my newest guild members explained that the fixed features of the other guilds had bored the crap out of him, and the options and risks that came with being in my guild were much more interesting.

Every power should have a cost, every bonus a qualifier. It's part of game design. The cost can be a power supply, or money, or completion of a task or mission or whatever. In Borderlands 2, the Thanksgiving Headhunter DLC gives you a nice Unique rocket launcher, and all you have to do is listen to Torgue's grandma tell you stories. But they are long, rambling, boring stories, and she even asks you a question or two to make sure you're paying attention before she gives it to you. That is the cost for the weapon, but it is still a cost.

The coolant system allows a greater range of power on a single ship, but it requires the coolant system to support it.

The notable benefits are as follows:

• Removing the need for docked generators & unlocking the hard cap on power systems
• More efficient weapon systems
• Solar damage resistance
• Extendable cloaking time
• More efficient Jump drive system

The costs are:

• 1 Block ID
• 1 Block gaining mass
  
• Additional system required in ship design to enact the benefit
• Vulnerability to heat if not properly supported
• Vulnerability to EMP if not resisted

The extended details :

• What if the power cap was removed, as long as you supported your power system with a coolant system to maintain it?
  
• Flexibility instead of rigidity in ship system design (once you hit cap, you make dock engines, no other alternatives)
  
• New battle tactics to integrate into strategies
• Docking systems still an option (Dock generators as before, or dock a cooling system to your ship for added effect, if you like)
• Forcing a reboot could be a reasonable alternative to suffering an overheat failure, since ALL of the reactor blocks would immediately begin cooling on reboot shutdown. Even a 30 second reboot could give the suffering ship a chance to recover from overheating.
• I know block IDs are at a premium, but what are they to be used for, if not a new block?
• If mass is such an issue, how come people don't universally make more efficient power systems? I think there's plenty of room for the Conduit to become a massed system component.

The other aspects of weapon balance and battle in Starmade is a broader topic than I'd like to get into until I have more experience, but I am still thinking on it. This coolant system idea is an attempt to offer alternatives in ship design, and may or may not provide any answers to the combat issues. Obviously I can't define it much more than this because I'm not a developer, and I expect even the best of cases, the concept would be subject to interpretation. But I still think it's a viable alternative to the existing arbitrary restriction caps. I'd still like to hear the criticisms...

 

[lilheartless]

You speak truth, so I'll try to explain myself better. (I've been told I leave out details sometimes.)

I had a conversation back in the 90's when I was part of the coding crew for an old MUD. I had just proposed a new class of character for people to play that had very powerful abilities at the sacrifice of stat points, which at the time were quite difficult to obtain. I was asked why would players give up stats in return for powerful abilities and equipment, why not just give them the abilities like the other guilds and let it

~snip~

The other aspects of weapon balance and battle in Starmade is a broader topic than I'd like to get into until I have more experience, but I am still thinking on it. This coolant system idea is an attempt to offer alternatives in ship design, and may or may not provide any answers to the combat issues. Obviously I can't define it much more than this because I'm not a developer, and I expect even the best of cases, the concept would be subject to interpretation. But I still think it's a viable alternative to the existing arbitrary restriction caps. I'd still like to hear the criticisms...

first let me start with my point about the block id's block ids are used for new blocks this is true but i feel like this falls into the same line as if say a new cannon block was added that did the exact same thing as the old cannon block but they left the old cannon block in cause so many people used it they couldn't afford to get rid of itm

Any new power system and the blocks that come with it have to bring A Radical change to the power system because right now docked reactors aka power supply beams are the way to exceed the soft cap, however power supply beams while useless actually are supposed to serve a completely different function so they cannot be removed as it stands right now you are replacing one block and adding a completely new block to do the same thing with power.

However, your idea about making the Thermal Systems a tertiary system that happens to tie in with power is actually a pretty fresh idea i can get behind and i wasn't actually thinking about that when i made my original post as i had just come from the other coolant post who's objective with his/her "coolant" system is neither as broad nor as unique as yours.

tl : dr making a new weapons tertiary system that also happens to be a way to overcome the natural soft cap is a pretty ingenious and impressive suggestion i can get behind.

 

[Billazilla]

first let me start with my point about the block id's block ids are used for new blocks this is true but i feel like this falls into the same line as if say a new cannon block was added that did the exact same thing as the old cannon block but they left the old cannon block in cause so many people used it they couldn't afford to get rid of itm

Any new power system and the blocks that come with it have to bring A Radical change to the power system because right now docked reactors aka power supply beams are the way to exceed the soft cap, however power supply beams while useless actually are supposed to serve a completely different function so they cannot be removed as it stands right now you are replacing one block and adding a completely new block to do the same thing with power.

However, your idea about making the Thermal Systems a tertiary system that happens to tie in with power is actually a pretty fresh idea i can get behind and i wasn't actually thinking about that when i made my original post as i had just come from the other coolant post who's objective with his/her "coolant" system is neither as broad nor as unique as yours.

tl : dr making a new weapons tertiary system that also happens to be a way to overcome the natural soft cap is a pretty ingenious and impressive suggestion i can get behind.

I've rarely been in favor of adding am item that just does one thing and one thing only.

I was wondering, what are power supply beams supposed to do besides feed power from one ship to another? It is a natural evolution of thinking that if you create a device to transfer power from one ship to another, eventually someone's going to just absorb the delivery system into the ship as people do now. Unless the supply beam does something else, I would say that it is the lesser of the two choices.

 

[lilheartless]

I've rarely been in favor of adding am item that just does one thing and one thing only.

I was wondering, what are power supply beams supposed to do besides feed power from one ship to another? It is a natural evolution of thinking that if you create a device to transfer power from one ship to another, eventually someone's going to just absorb the delivery system into the ship as people do now. Unless the supply beam does something else, I would say that it is the lesser of the two choices.

the power supply beam is supposed to be a logistics supply weapon used to support ships being focused in combat rather than having the ships do damage themselves, i suppose maybe at one point it was supposed to be the only way to power large ships is if you had smaller ships boosting you up. The thing that makes the irrelevant however is that because all things are equal in this game anything one ship can do another ship can do just as easily i mean why shoot energy at a big ship at a 20% deficit when you could just launch 100% of that energy as missiles that the big ship would have launched anyways.

 

[Billazilla]

the power supply beam is supposed to be a logistics supply weapon used to support ships being focused in combat rather than having the ships do damage themselves, i suppose maybe at one point it was supposed to be the only way to power large ships is if you had smaller ships boosting you up. The thing that makes the irrelevant however is that because all things are equal in this game anything one ship can do another ship can do just as easily i mean why shoot energy at a big ship at a 20% deficit when you could just launch 100% of that energy as missiles that the big ship would have launched anyways.

Because missiles can be shot down? The raw numbers might be the same, but the delivery system is different. Missiles are relatively slow and destructible in route. Cannons fire fast and have decent range over beams. Beams can be tracked on a target while firing. Simple damage numbers are not the only factor.

This is also why I'm suggesting alternative routes of ship design, because if everyone makes the same, optimized design, then yeah, all the ships will behave the same. Diversifying the method of approach, whether it's to weapon design or power systems or whatever, opens new strategies and therefore different results.

And why have power supply support ships, which can be even more vulnerable floating along side your main ship where they can be shot, shifted, or smashed, when you can just implant them directly into your main ship and protect your power source with hull, shields, and weapons? The power supply beam does sound like a one trick pony...

 

[lilheartless]

Because missiles can be shot down? The raw numbers might be the same, but the delivery system is different. Missiles are relatively slow and destructible in route. Cannons fire fast and have decent range over beams. Beams can be tracked on a target while firing. Simple damage numbers are not the only factor.

This is also why I'm suggesting alternative routes of ship design, because if everyone makes the same, optimized design, then yeah, all the ships will behave the same. Diversifying the method of approach, whether it's to weapon design or power systems or whatever, opens new strategies and therefore different results.

And why have power supply support ships, which can be even more vulnerable floating along side your main ship where they can be shot, shifted, or smashed, when you can just implant them directly into your main ship and protect your power source with hull, shields, and weapons? The power supply beam does sound like a one trick pony...

I think you missed my point with this post which is understandable i was pretty tired and not clear on what i meant.

What i meant was that since there is no real "reason" to have support ships( can't replace damage blocks on the fly astrotech useless) (no way to get a shield regeneration bonus (meaning that ships with shield transfer arrays do 1 of 2 things either they transfer no shields or they die the second the boost a ship up one time) (weapon systems have no scaling bonus) which all leads to the fact that there is no point in "supporting" another ship other than by bringing more damage because anything you could "give" to another ship you could use better on your own (whether it be firing a volley of missiles that the big ship would have just fired at a loss with the power transferred or raining bullet hell with your own cannon cannon it makes no difference because there is no specialization there is no reason to support anyone else And in this i think we agree i just didn't get my issues across clearly)

I'm all for more systems that actually "do things" at some point I would like to see the game evolve to the point where you have to make specialized ships and not just i've got x amount of free space lets just throw in as much of everything as i can fit.

 

[alterintel]

I like it

 

[Dire Venom]

Wouldnt docked reactors still be really good :?
Because they would self cool (or require only a little bit of coolant to do so ) and wouldnt affect each other thus it would be allmost imossible to make the ship overheat and itd need very little cooling.

Great idea btw +1 (although itd need some balancing)

 

[Billazilla]

I think you missed my point with this post which is understandable i was pretty tired and not clear on what i meant.

What i meant was that since there is no real "reason" to have support ships( can't replace damage blocks on the fly astrotech useless) (no way to get a shield regeneration bonus (meaning that ships with shield transfer arrays do 1 of 2 things either they transfer no shields or they die the second the boost a ship up one time) (weapon systems have no scaling bonus) which all leads to the fact that there is no point in "supporting" another ship other than by bringing more damage because anything you could "give" to another ship you could use better on your own (whether it be firing a volley of missiles that the big ship would have just fired at a loss with the power transferred or raining bullet hell with your own cannon cannon it makes no difference because there is no specialization there is no reason to support anyone else And in this i think we agree i just didn't get my issues across clearly)

I'm all for more systems that actually "do things" at some point I would like to see the game evolve to the point where you have to make specialized ships and not just i've got x amount of free space lets just throw in as much of everything as i can fit.

I think maybe you did lose me in concept there.

One thing I am taking into account here is the ongoing work on the game. I am expecting the devteam to make changes. They can't not update the weapons systems and how combat works. I've seen enough complaint & suggestion threads that I suspect they will make some sort of changes in the future, even if it's not on the roadmap. What effects this will have on power supply and generation, we can't tell yet, but I'm offering this idea up to be integrated into future game plans. It has the versatility to adjust and combine with concepts and changes they could come up with in the future. I could be wrong, and they could be fixed on their existing system plans... but that's nothing I can affect directly, and I'm having fun so far...

 

[Sildaran]

So seems I am not 100% crazy and other people are thinking on coolant aspect. This one seems a lot less complex them my suggestion so probably a better path.
Now confused why this constant defending of the current docked power supply method? The current system requires adding in docked entities (which are less laggy now but still not perfect), with logic enabled power supply beams (again bits of lag induced here and fun on heavy loaded servers), also from what I see is actually strictly limited on several multiplayer servers specifically for this lag reason. So why keep defending this current "work around" to the energy gen issue?
Also simple fix from dev to make players to choose a coolant system of a docked entitie.. don't allow a docked entity to target/hit the ship it is docked to... Now can still use the beam for its intended purpose and not this current mess.

 

[Billazilla]

Wouldnt docked reactors still be really good :?
Because they would self cool (or require only a little bit of coolant to do so ) and wouldnt affect each other thus it would be allmost imossible to make the ship overheat and itd need very little cooling.

Great idea btw +1 (although itd need some balancing)

It would definitely need balance, in truth. I'm no mathematician, and a lot of equations lie beneath the hood of Starmade.

The use of several small self-cooling docked reactors is effectively nulled by the current power system, especially when you move towards larger ships. Individually, they would provide considerably less power than a larger, more volume-effective but greater heat-building system. The heat generation of the power system would be based on a factor of how much power it created, primarily. An optional secondary factor would be efficiency, specifically how many faces of a reactor touched another reactor. This would strongly enforce the existing volume-over-quantity aspect of a power system, making massive solid blocks of reactors create lots of heat compared to a strictly volume-focused and spread-out system. However, that would be much more restrictive than designs allow now, so that would be up to the devteam to decide if the efficiency would affect its heat. I don't think I would like it, but it's still something to consider.

 

[jayman38]

I'm thinking in terms of creating reactors by slaving reactor blocks to a control computer to create a master reactor system. (Just use decorative computers as control computers to avoid using up additional Block IDs.) Then having the coolant system as a slave effect system that can be slaved to reactor computers, weapon computers, or something else. Uses the existing mechanics and the computers create a sensitive single point of failure that makes the entire reactor shut down when destroyed. I'm thinking that the reactor computer needs to be a target-able subsystem on the ship, replacing the functions of docked reactors. These reactors would each have their own softcap like docked reactors, and a lucky hit to the control computer would take out the reactor, just like with docked reactors, but without all the, ya know, server-killing lag. The coolant control computer is slaved to the reactor control computer with a percentage depending on block match or however the slave effect system currently works, from a certain minimum softcap (50% of normal softcap if the reactor has absolutely no cooling system, up to 100% softcap generation if the reactor block count matches the slaved coolant block count. If the coolant effect computer is taken out, the coolant effect subsystem is rendered inactive and maybe the reactor has a softcap at 50% standard (server-configurable?).

tl;dr Make the coolant system a slave effect system. Set up reactors to be computer-controlled, slaved sets of reactor blocks, with each reactor given its own softcap generation like a docked reactor, but without the physics calculations and undocking problems. The coolant system is slaved as an effect system to the reactor to maximize the softcap.

 

[Billazilla]

I'm thinking in terms of creating reactors by slaving reactor blocks to a control computer to create a master reactor system. (Just use decorative computers as control computers to avoid using up additional Block IDs.) Then having the coolant system as a slave effect system that can be slaved to reactor computers, weapon computers, or something else. Uses the existing mechanics and the computers create a sensitive single point of failure that makes the entire reactor shut down when destroyed. I'm thinking that the reactor computer needs to be a target-able subsystem on the ship, replacing the functions of docked reactors. These reactors would each have their own softcap like docked reactors, and a lucky hit to the control computer would take out the reactor, just like with docked reactors, but without all the, ya know, server-killing lag. The coolant control computer is slaved to the reactor control computer with a percentage depending on block match or however the slave effect system currently works, from a certain minimum softcap (50% of normal softcap if the reactor has absolutely no cooling system, up to 100% softcap generation if the reactor block count matches the slaved coolant block count. If the coolant effect computer is taken out, the coolant effect subsystem is rendered inactive and maybe the reactor has a softcap at 50% standard (server-configurable?).

tl;dr Make the coolant system a slave effect system. Set up reactors to be computer-controlled, slaved sets of reactor blocks, with each reactor given its own softcap generation like a docked reactor, but without the physics calculations and undocking problems. The coolant system is slaved as an effect system to the reactor to maximize the softcap.

A viable adaptation. I'm for it. Maintains the crippling effect of losing a coolant system as well as the benefit of installing one, and doesn't require a major function change in reactors other than adding a computer. Bravo!