Curious Fuel Survey

[QuantumAnomaly]

If a fuel mechanic is implemented, it should be simple. Also, what if we focused more on using what was already in game?

Adding a single factory (the fuel refinery) we could use a lot of the above suggestions without adding many more blocks.

The suggestion of lava is good, as a base fuel. Say you get 1 arbitrary unit of fuel for each block of lava refined in the fuel refinery.

Ice could be a step up (thinking heavy water deuterium type stuff) and provide 2 units.

Refining ore in a fuel processor instead of a capsule refinery could yield 3 units, and refining crystals 5.

For biofuels, maybe you can refine plants, shrubs, top stuff, etc, for 1 unit each.

This does a number of things with minimal effort. First of all it negates the need to add additional resources to the game (and requires only one additional block). Second, it provides a use for several unused blocks in the game. Third, it helps address the overabundance issue of having so many ores and crystals by having a player make hard decisions on what those crystals and ores are used for. Finally, it gives a player a place to dump/recycle the ores and crystals they never use, rather then trying to sell them or make computers with them.

The next step would be to make sure that fuel is not a requirement, but merely a boost (or a boon), to power generation. We already have the power reactor block, and a very stable power generation mechanic attached to it. So instead of changing this mechanic, we should only look at ways to enhance (or add detriments) for having or not having fuel. Having fuel could increase jump drive charge times, acceleration, turn rate, etc. On the flip side, not having fuel could simply reduce these types of things, although I tend to be more on the side of rewarding a player for taking the extra steps than for punishing them for not doing so.

I could go much further, but I'll stop there for now to keep from writing a book on the idea

 

[Snk]

To all of the people who said it would create a grind: Is this a good or bad thing to you?

To me, it is a good thing. Grinding makes a reason to have a division of labor - people who want to mine can mine, others can steal the fuel, etc. It creates a labor deficiency, which creates a supply and demand.

Besides, mining fuel doesn't have to be boring. I'm sure there will be a good system later on for interesting mining.

 

[friendofvampires]

If a fuel mechanic is implemented, it should be simple. Also, what if we focused more on using what was already in game?

Adding a single factory (the fuel refinery) we could use a lot of the above suggestions without adding many more blocks.

The suggestion of lava is good, as a base fuel. Say you get 1 arbitrary unit of fuel for each block of lava refined in the fuel refinery.

Ice could be a step up (thinking heavy water deuterium type stuff) and provide 2 units.

Refining ore in a fuel processor instead of a capsule refinery could yield 3 units, and refining crystals 5.

For biofuels, maybe you can refine plants, shrubs, top stuff, etc, for 1 unit each.

This does a number of things with minimal effort. First of all it negates the need to add additional resources to the game (and requires only one additional block). Second, it provides a use for several unused blocks in the game. Third, it helps address the overabundance issue of having so many ores and crystals by having a player make hard decisions on what those crystals and ores are used for. Finally, it gives a player a place to dump/recycle the ores and crystals they never use, rather then trying to sell them or make computers with them.

The next step would be to make sure that fuel is not a requirement, but merely a boost (or a boon), to power generation. We already have the power reactor block, and a very stable power generation mechanic attached to it. So instead of changing this mechanic, we should only look at ways to enhance (or add detriments) for having or not having fuel. Having fuel could increase jump drive charge times, acceleration, turn rate, etc. On the flip side, not having fuel could simply reduce these types of things, although I tend to be more on the side of rewarding a player for taking the extra steps than for punishing them for not doing so.

I could go much further, but I'll stop there for now to keep from writing a book on the idea

+1 i like and agree with this

 

[Effane]

There are ways to make mining interesting. PVE pirate attacks come to mind. When they work on the NPC factions this will become more effective to implement. Turning all blocks into fodder for fuel also makes sense. it would become the fifth method of getting fuel.

I do think there should be multiple methods of mining. One being stationary, slow and automated, the other being mobile, fast and manual. Space based fueling would be siphoning from asteroids or from a sun. Terrestrial would be mining passively on a planet. Essentially 4 mining methods, plus the 5th method above of recycling.

I think that the system should be in line with current resource usage. Base the fuel off alloy and crystal composites, not like those don't stack up anyways. We don't need too many new blocks for this system to be working actually. Just need game engine logic.

 

[Kenshkrix]

I like the idea of fuel, but as a separate system from the existing power reactors.
They'd require a bit more management, having to use fuel and such, but would fill a 'burst' style niche that reactors/capacitors don't really support.
No idea what the comparison in power per second per block should be, depends on how long a given bit of fuel lasts and whether there's more than one kind of fuel, if you get 1 minute per fuel tank per reactor than it could be substantially better than the usual reactor for a brief time.
For example, running your cloaking device off an emergency antimatter generator, it'd only last a minute or two but that's better than the current All or Nothing approach to cloaking.


As far as designing ships goes, I guess you'd have fuel tanks and fuel reactors/generators (Or just storage w/ fuel in it and fuel reactors), they'd have a denser power output at the costs of fuel and operating time (Presumably the ratio between them would define the operating time but not the power output).

Maybe have them follow a different design philosophy for efficiency, instead of the usual power reactor BoxDim algorithm. Not sure what would make a good design, maybe just the opposite of the power reactor design? Wherein having a large but compact reactor is more efficient, allowing for much smaller designs at the cost of upkeep.


Either way, I definitely enjoy the magical zero point power reactors we currently have, but they shouldn't necessarily be the best (only) possible choice in every situation, the option to have a smaller ship in a limited operating window equal a larger ship that can stick around forever makes it more interesting.
The only issue I can see is if a faction gets rich enough to field a titan, while the general operating time should ignore scale it would force a similarly sized titan running classic reactors to retreat or be literally overpowered.
I don't really see how this is a bad thing, because the titan running off fuel would be spending resources literally every moment of the fight, whereas as long as the other titan runs before its shields drop it hasn't lost anything (Unless it was defending a station that gets wrecked, in which case they probably should have put [more] guns on it to equalize the battlefield).

 

[TheKingOfSpace]

I say leave the old infinireactors in, but cut their power cap to 50-100k or so, and/or add solar panels that provide an energy boost in/near star systems.

This will let small ships operate just fine, making it easier on nubbies, nobody has to worry about refueling tiny, disposable ships, and unless the server tries real hard to make it possible, nobody gets 'stranded' - though I personally think 'stranded' would be a fun challenge, the more buildy-types seem to dislike it.


Could additionally have different types of fuel provide bonuses, extra power, shielding, acceleration etc.

 

[Jake_Lancia]

Personally I'm of the opinion that fuel should be an alternative system mainly for larger ships, say, anything using over 1 million e/s. That way smaller ships and newbs won't be punished and gives a reason to use smaller ships, and also gives a reason for larger factions to keep mining or whatever to get the fuel for their super-mega-ultra-fuel-hungry-titan thing.
There should really be a new factory type (fuel refinery) that refines that deuterium or antimatter or whatever you mined to usable fuels. And I also think there should be a station-placeable block with a small storage inside that automatically generates a small amount of fuel, so there will never be a complete shortage, but these modules should be incredibly inefficient and highly expensive to buy or craft.

 

[kiraen]

Random thoughts cuz I'm to tired to write a wall.

Ice could be a step up (thinking heavy water deuterium type stuff) and provide 2 units.
Refining ore in a fuel processor instead of a capsule refinery could yield 3 units, and refining crystals 5.

Time should also be a factor in refining, ie. 1 ice may take 2 minutes for that 2 units, but 1 lava can do 1 unit in 1 minute.
We actually already have a fuel, it called power and thrusters are already dependent on it.
Different types of engines with different stats require different fuels. A formula 1 race car, my honda, and a dump truck do not all use the same type of fuel.
Differing types of fuel produce power at different rates. Deuterium may double the charge rate of the ships batteries over basic 'solar'.
The jump drive most definitely should require a more exotic / expensive fuel.


Fuel as an addon, details need to be worked out tho.

 

[Yrjosmiel]

for the newbies who don't harvest fuel yet
how about stellar energy, which is harnessed with a new block which absorbs energy when near a star so you don't really need fuel and sht.

 

[Valiant70]

I liked the idea of fuel being required for ships using over 1m e/sec. There was another idea derived partially from someone else's idea that I posted in another thread: All ships get a certain amount of free power. The ratio of free power to fueled power diminishes up to a hard-soft cap (asymptote). Both the asymptote and the base ratio of free to fueled power would be server configurable so servers can create the meta they desire.

An ideal configuration would diminish power in such a way that a larger ship always has more total free power (until the cap), but always has a smaller percentage of free power than a small ship. A ship reaching the cap has the maximum amount of free power, but must burn fuel to gain any more at all. Thus the power cap would become the "free power cap."

This would not require the removal of (or even a nerf to) docked reactors, as an unfueled ship with docked reactors would still be easily overwhelmed by a fueled one with only built-in reactors.

The overall effect of this system is that small ships are exponentially more resource efficient to run, making the whole thing easy on newbies as a small starter ship would have no need for fuel to work well.

I may need to compile the best ideas so far and put them into one suggestion thread.

 

[CyberTao]

To all of the people who said it would create a grind: Is this a good or bad thing to you?

To me, it is a good thing. Grinding makes a reason to have a division of labor - people who want to mine can mine, others can steal the fuel, etc. It creates a labor deficiency, which creates a supply and demand.

Besides, mining fuel doesn't have to be boring. I'm sure there will be a good system later on for interesting mining.

Just to poke something out for you, "grinding" is negative. The true definition of the term is doing the same boring task other and other again with little variation, it's objectively negative, people just learnt to cope with small amounts of it. If the only way you can describe something ingame is as a grind, it needs work and improvement. Mining as a whole could use a little work in this regard.


As for the thread, how many of you all have considered the power of docked reactors? It's basically part of the game, and might need a bit of thinking to incorporate into fuel.

 

[Visitor]

The option closest to my take on it would be I want fuel as an alternative or an add-on rather than a replacement of the current system - and thus, that one I've chosen.

To be honest, I think the game would benefit from several different propulsion systems, including one requiring fuel. Having 3 types of such: a regular, effective, fuel-requiring drive, solar sails working well only in certain distance from a star and finally, relatively heavily influenced by weight (and harshly scaling with it in size) propulsion that's 'install & forget' similar to the current one -

- would be better for me than being forced to care about fuel no matter what to be able to fly a ship at all or having this kind of boringly crude propulsion working for everyone with no downsides like we have now - it would encourage intelligent ship design with thrust dependant on role and size of the vessel and possibly would even allow new piloting and design techniques/standards with the use of hybrid propulsion.

I'd like to see a patrol cruiser flying through a star system on solar-powered drive, but with small, fuel-requiring drive for additional boost when in emergency or in pursuit. I want to see fighters flying well with small, simple drives that one won't be just able to upscale and stick into a titan for similar effect (really, the fact that big ships are basically upscaled small ones when it comes to most subsystems and mechanics is generally rather disappointing). I wouldn't even mind seeing more ambitious, powerful fleets, with ships of modular design and engineers retrofitting/changing their propulsion for maximum efficiency in the upcoming battle before those vessels embark.

Aside from that, I'd have to agree that grinding is typically, as per common definition considered as a bad thing. However, systems requiring fuel, especially when they wouldn't be unavoidable element that has to be dealt with to enjoy other content of the game wouldn't be that much of a grind - merely a choice and an option that would have to be taken into consideration when designing a ship.
Like rails right now - while there are players who may find rails feature unnecessarily bothersome, boring and generally not worth the effort, no one forces them to use it - they can still enjoy most of the game's content just with their ships being a tad bit more crude.

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

Just to poke something out for you, "grinding" is negative. The true definition of the term is doing the same boring task other and other again with little variation, it's objectively negative, people just learnt to cope with small amounts of it. If the only way you can describe something ingame is as a grind, it needs work and improvement. Mining as a whole could use a little work in this regard.


As for the thread, how many of you all have considered the power of docked reactors? It's basically part of the game, and might need a bit of thinking to incorporate into fuel.

My only real issues with the current docked reactor system are the fact that power transfer beams have a tendency (especially on servers) to "clip" through the ship, meaning they fire for a half second through all blocks before they actually "connect" to the block right in front of them and start transferring power. This is ugly, a distraction, and warns your opponents that you have docked reactors long before you're in firing range.

The only other counter to this would be power flowing down the chain of rails, but that would break things too quickly, and I dont feel like making a ship in reverse where my docked reactors are my "parent" ship, with all of my weapons and hull being one step up the chain run by turrets just to abuse power up the chain as it is currently.

 

[CyberTao]

My only real issues with the current docked reactor system are the fact that power transfer beams have a tendency (especially on servers) to "clip" through the ship, meaning they fire for a half second through all blocks before they actually "connect" to the block right in front of them and start transferring power. This is ugly, a distraction, and warns your opponents that you have docked reactors long before you're in firing range.

The only other counter to this would be power flowing down the chain of rails, but that would break things too quickly, and I dont feel like making a ship in reverse where my docked reactors are my "parent" ship, with all of my weapons and hull being one step up the chain run by turrets just to abuse power up the chain as it is currently.

I reason I brought up reactors was because a lot of people tend to think of "A fuel ideal for larger ships" as part of their suggestions. I personally don't think a linear growth in fuel would benefit anyone, which means it would probably end up either on a curve, or a fixed rate. If it is on a curve, they you can still do R&D for optimal docked reactors, but if it is a fixed rate or linear, there is problems.

Just some things to consider. When the weapons system came out, power supply was tweaked to be non-game breaking when it was used for reactors, it is a player invented part of the game. I wouldn't mind have a couple fuel-based docked engine/reactors to fuel up, but it needs consideration in the thought process and concepts.

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

Just some things to consider. When the weapons system came out, power supply was tweaked to be non-game breaking when it was used for reactors, it is a player invented part of the game. I wouldn't mind have a couple fuel-based docked engine/reactors to fuel up, but it needs consideration in the thought process and concepts.

I agree fully with you there. I wouldnt mind seeing some kind of multiblock, like a fuel tank, to be based around building a frame with the empty space in the middle being calculated as "fuel storage" (similar to how power recharge is calculated) meaning that you could make your fuel tank any shape or size, but actually had to have some open space inside of your ship to do it with.

 

[friendofvampires]

I agree fully with you there. I wouldnt mind seeing some kind of multiblock, like a fuel tank, to be based around building a frame with the empty space in the middle being calculated as "fuel storage" (similar to how power recharge is calculated) meaning that you could make your fuel tank any shape or size, but actually had to have some open space inside of your ship to do it with.

that would actually be really cool if you could transfer items across docked entities, so you could dock a freighter to a titan to refuel it, then undock and warp away

 

[Snk]

As for the thread, how many of you all have considered the power of docked reactors? It's basically part of the game, and might need a bit of thinking to incorporate into fuel.

They don't work. I tried using them on a small shuttle of mine - the whole entity shares the same amount of power, so the mothership ends up using it's power to supply the same beams that are giving it power. It's a cycle. I'm going to try to use pull beams to latch stuff onto my ship, though. That may work.

 

[CyberTao]

They don't work. I tried using them on a small shuttle of mine - the whole entity shares the same amount of power, so the mothership ends up using it's power to supply the same beams that are giving it power. It's a cycle. I'm going to try to use pull beams to latch stuff onto my ship, though. That may work.

Either the reactor is too small to work, or the weapon is too stronk. Power supply is technically a weapon of sorts, so it draws from the main ship if the docked reactor does not have enough power to supply to the main ship (Stupid I know, but it's what we got).

 

[QuantumAnomaly]

To get a docked reactor to work properly, you will need to use power capacity as well as recharge rate. You have to make sure that you have more capacity than is required to fire the powersupply beam, at which point it will not draw power from the parent (at least as far as my testing has gone) so long as the recharge rate is significant enough

 

[Colt556]

Things like fuel, ammo, and oxygen are things I'd love to see in game. I'm a huge proponent of freedom when it comes to building, which is why I don't like ideas such as thruster placement dictating movement, because that screws over a lot of ship designs. But I think being forced to design your ship to be fuel efficient and the like is a nice thing. And it adds a lot of potential gameplay to survival servers. For example, tanker ships now become a thing, factions might have large tankers with their fleets to keep them topped up. It also does create something to fight over and trade for.

I do think alternate sources of energy would be nice, such as solar power being a viable option when relatively close to a star but when in deep space it doesn't generate power. So you could either use it on short range in-system ships or maybe go for a destiny style build where you have huge energy capacitors to store the energy you soak up from a star. I also feel smaller ships should be exempt from more restrictive fuel systems, that way new players or those who just wanna zip about do not have to worry about this.

Overall, I do like more survival aspects as I think it benefits the game to offer more than just building nice looking ships.