Designated Power

[Tomatart_B]

My idea is that you can designate certain amounts of power in a ship/station to various systems.

Example: If you set 50% power to weapons, weapons would only use 50% of total power and that 50% is always reserved for weapon use.

You could also have an "Open power" setting where that power is accessible by anything/everything.

This could be used for shields, weapons, thrust, ect.

It would basically determine how much power each system is allowed to access/use.

 

[spocklin]

interesting idea what does the rest of the community think?

 

[jayman38]

This is what we see in Scifi media. I no longer think that a GUI is appropriate for power distribution and control. There are too many systems to control this way.

I think to accommodate the game in its current state, we can link an activation block to a group of ... whichever power group is needed. (Capacitors, reactors, the new blocks). The activation block can then be directed via logic to various systems or to the main power system. This way, you use the existing logic system to focus existing power groups onto existing systems.

There needs to be multiple activation blocks per each power group. That way, if you want to direct a given group to thrust, you activate one block, and to redirect to, say, a weapon system, you activate a different activation block that is linked to another system. And then you could open up some interesting logic combinations with the other logic, using ORs, ANDs, and NOTs.

Then you can use a sensor block with the power group, to get an indication on when a given system will have access to the appropriate power level, such as having a power capacitor group having more than 80% charge, being enough to power the missile system it is linked to, as a simple example.

 

[terra mining corp.]

And basically remove the casual gamers on pvp because of the learning curve,not sure if this is good or bad.

 

[StarWars1981]

Give secondary reactors a secondary functionality: THEY can be logic-directed, if they are connected to a logic block. However, this is now the ONLY way to direct their power. This means that you can have it act as, basically, a capacitor bank for ONE system. Be it thrust (by connecting to one thrust block), shielding (recharge only), or a weapon system / passive effect (connected to CPU; can have multiple groups). You could also connect the logic to the core ... as another sort of power dump, although with controls to do this already, there's no need. I guess it might be useful to SOME sort of contraption to allow it to be connected to a capacitor bank (which then ONLY stores energy from the secondary unit, and can also be controlled by logic-release). But I doubt it's worth coding in.
Also, this logic can be connected to a rail turret axis (or any other rail setup, really) to directly feed a steady power supply to a turret. Hello, useful citadels. Well, more useful, anyways. Now the turret will operate no matter what the enemy does to your main ship's powergrid, UNLESS he should hit your auxiliary power reactors, at which point, if it's PURE EMP effect, you lose power from that grid. If it's NOT pure EMP ... well, you've got other issues now, xD. And this isn't even difficult logic to set up. If we get more tutorial videos readily available (anybody wanna pin a thread somewhere prominent, just containing lists of good tutorial videos?) to new players, i.e. link to SMD from the game launcher (is there one?), this won't be an issue for them to learn. Especially if they don't immediately succumb to giantism.

 

[Spoolooni]

Would simplify a lot of things for sure. Reducing complexity and creating more depth is something we need to embrace. Having players calculate power based on situations by performing a simple task of dragging their cursor on a chart is simple yet there's a lot of depth and strategy that can arise from it.

 

[DrTarDIS]

MMM, I agree in premise but in execution I'd prefer a sort of expansion on the thrust allocation menu.
Something that let you allocate energy reserve % itself towards one or more systems, or cap their consumption.

 

[Dire Venom]

Really cool idea, Im unsure how practical it would be though. In what sort of situations would you use it:? It seems as if it would only limit a systems maximum performance, and you do that already when you design your ship. Otherwise you'll end up with thruster and weapon blocks your not using :/
If you could maybe instead boost or provide different types of auxiliary power to systems perhaps :?

 

[Nickizzy]

Really cool idea, Im unsure how practical it would be though. In what sort of situations would you use it:? It seems as if it would only limit a systems maximum performance, and you do that already when you design your ship. Otherwise you'll end up with thruster and weapon blocks your not using :/
If you could maybe instead boost or provide different types of auxiliary power to systems perhaps :?

It's a way to give people "more control", and let some people fine-tune their power so they make just enough to power all their systems, or be inefficient and just limit all their systems until they can support them.

 

[Tomatart_B]

Another thing i thought of is. If we had a power computer that controlled the power, it could be so that certain power blocks are designated to systems, and if those blocks are destroyed then those systems wont have power to use, and thus the systems will be unusable.

 

[Jojomo]

We already effectively manage our power for systems - when we need more power to recharge shields we stop firing large weapons, etc...

Example: If you set 50% power to weapons, weapons would only use 50% of total power and that 50% is always reserved for weapon use.

You can do this now: Have two reactor entities of the same size, A and B, with B docked to A (which is the root ship entity). Dock your weapons to B, and all other power consuming stuff to A.
Your weapons will always have at least 50% of your power generation reserved for them. Everything else has to share only the 50% from A.

You could also have an "Open power" setting where that power is accessible by anything/everything.

I.e. the typical default power setup used now?

It may not currently be possible to have both this and the setup above simultaneously, but unless every one of your consuming systems needs 100% of your total power generated to run at 100% output, it would never be necessary to use this (not considering damage). So some form of the above setup where some systems have some reserved power could always be used.

 

[Edymnion]

You can do this now: Have two reactor entities of the same size, A and B, with B docked to A (which is the root ship entity). Dock your weapons to B, and all other power consuming stuff to A.
Your weapons will always have at least 50% of your power generation reserved for them. Everything else has to share only the 50% from A.

Please don't do this.

We have worked so hard to get rid of docked reactors. Please just stop using them. They are bad for the game, they cause horrible lag when they undock, please just stop using them.

If later on we get things that will fix the lag when they're undocked? Great, use them all you want. But seriously, its this kind of stuff that are going to end up forcing the devs to take ever more drastic action to stop docked reactors to the point it ends up hurting other parts of the game because people can't take a friggin' hint.

 

[Jojomo]

Please don't do this.

We have worked so hard to get rid of docked reactors. Please just stop using them. They are bad for the game, they cause horrible lag when they undock, please just stop using them.

If later on we get things that will fix the lag when they're undocked? Great, use them all you want. But seriously, its this kind of stuff that are going to end up forcing the devs to take ever more drastic action to stop docked reactors to the point it ends up hurting other parts of the game because people can't take a friggin' hint.

You want the devs to take the time to stop that lag? They won't unless there's a reason to, and if no-one uses multiple reactor entities that reason will be much much smaller.
Personally I'd even go so far as to say that they're good for the game - they'll virtually guarantee that a solution for colliding undocked entities will happen. (A few potential solutions in this thread)

A docked reactor (now impossible) increases the power output of the root ship entity. Using multiple reactors doesn't - this isn't a "docked reactor", it's "multiple reactors".

With multiple reactors you have to dock them in some form of tree structure, which makes them far less versatile and more restrictive than actual docked reactors, and less attractive to use (relatively). They're also more vulnerable to failing due to damage, because instead of being docked "under" or "beside" the ship root entity they have to be docked "above" it, so you have a chain that breaks if any link in it is broken - more points of failure.

Multiple reactors already happen in dev-approved behaviour: self-powered turrets, and smaller ships being powered by the larger ships/stations they're docked to, just to name a couple, so they aren't likely to be going anywhere.

Multiple reactors doesn't just let you have "moar power!", it also gives you a whole new aspect to design, and lets you create extra control and behaviour (coupled with extra negatives) that you couldn't otherwise get (and that docked reactors never had) - this OP is a perfect example.

The collision lag you're worried about isn't specific to multiple reactors any way. It applies to anything from docked decorative angled computers in the bridge to deeply embedded turrets.

 

[Edymnion]

You want the devs to take the time to stop that lag? They won't unless there's a reason to, and if no-one uses multiple reactor entities that reason will be much much smaller.
Personally I'd even go so far as to say that they're good for the game - they'll virtually guarantee that a solution for colliding undocked entities will happen. (A few potential solutions in this thread)

A docked reactor (now impossible) increases the power output of the root ship entity. Using multiple reactors doesn't - this isn't a "docked reactor", it's "multiple reactors".

---

The collision lag you're worried about isn't specific to multiple reactors any way. It applies to anything from docked decorative angled computers in the bridge to deeply embedded turrets.

Just because you change the name of it doesn't make it different (although politically that has been the case, but I digress). Its a reactor. That you dock. Inside the ship. Its a docked reactor, just because you try to change the name doesn't change the fact that its a docked reactor.

If anything, its WORSE than a docked reactor, because not only do you now have a docked reactor inside the ship that is just as prone to problems as the ones they designed an entire new system to invalidate, but now you're docking turrets to it for even more clippage once the thing undocks. Now its not just the one entity inside the ship bouncing around, its now a sandwich between the turrets, the ship, and the reactor.

And no, its not a precedence by having self powered turrets, as self powered turrets are generally OUTSIDE THE SHIP and do not cause horrendous server wide lag when they undock.

And yes, the lag does apply to all manner of internal docked entities, like rail doors. Thing is, those rail doors and docked angled displays are a few blocks that are pretty easy for the server to calculate. Reactors on the scale you are talking about are thousands of times bigger. Tens of thousands of times bigger. And they are exponentially worse when damaged. Just go look at the videos of the ships with docked hulls when they're destroyed and the interior core clips through the now undocked hull, the server barely survives.

---

And really, the best excuse you can come up with is "Well if I don't abuse this as hard as I possibly can, it won't get fixed", after the devs just got done trying to fix it? They tried to fix it, and people doing this are just continuing the exploit loopholes to get around the developer's stated intentions.

If I were a server admin, one of my main server rules would be "No docked reactors, no docked hulls, no docked anything that crashes my server when undocked."

There's a huge difference between being a "pro" that gets maximum effect out of the system, and being in my mind a cheater that exploits loopholes to gain unfair advantages at the cost of the entire rest of the server population.

 

[Magrim]

I made a suggestion somewhat similar to this a while back advocating for linking capacitors to a system to give it a temporary boost. It got a couple of likes but no one saw fit to comment . Although now that we have power auxiliaries, they might be a better choice for linking to systems.

Perhaps I'm missing something but what benefit is there to having a system run at 50% power? Is it to give the feeling of diverting power from engines to shields?

 

[Edymnion]

Perhaps I'm missing something but what benefit is there to having a system run at 50% power? Is it to give the feeling of diverting power from engines to shields?

Its got more to do with protecting the ship from things like EMP weapons.

Few people build a ship with enough energy leeway to be able to withstand a full on EMP attack, and relatively few people go to the trouble to make fully self powered turrets. So, they build a ship that is on the razor's edge of power usage, get into a fight, and they get hit with EMP weapons. Suddenly their shields and weapons are causing them to consume more power than they have available, their batteries tank, and they're left floating there with no power while they get slaughtered.

This would mean that things like weapons and shields couldn't over-draw and cause blackouts.

 

[Jojomo]

Just because you change the name of it doesn't make it different (although politically that has been the case, but I digress). Its a reactor. That you dock. Inside the ship. Its a docked reactor, just because you try to change the name doesn't change the fact that its a docked reactor.

"Docked reactor" is a term with a specific meaning. We all know when we see it that it means a long brick that fires a logic power supply beam. We're not talking about those now.
You don't call turrets "docked turrets" just because they're docked.

If anything, its WORSE than a docked reactor, because not only do you now have a docked reactor inside the ship that is just as prone to problems as the ones they designed an entire new system to invalidate, but now you're docking turrets to it for even more clippage once the thing undocks. Now its not just the one entity inside the ship bouncing around, its now a sandwich between the turrets, the ship, and the reactor.

It's isn't colliding with the turrets, and the turrets don't increase the reactor bounding box, they have their own, so not much difference here.

And no, its not a precedence by having self powered turrets, as self powered turrets are generally OUTSIDE THE SHIP and do not cause horrendous server wide lag when they undock.

Self powered turrets are often plugs extending inside the ship.

I didn't say it was a precedent - I said power behaving the way it does between docked entities are unlikely to disappear. (Which means multiple reactors are unlikely to disappear)

And yes, the lag does apply to all manner of internal docked entities, like rail doors. Thing is, those rail doors and docked angled displays are a few blocks that are pretty easy for the server to calculate. Reactors on the scale you are talking about are thousands of times bigger. Tens of thousands of times bigger. And they are exponentially worse when damaged. Just go look at the videos of the ships with docked hulls when they're destroyed and the interior core clips through the now undocked hull, the server barely survives.

The bounding box of the ship is also checked. So you can't make a blanket statement that's accurate for all reactors. The undocked door in your titan may have to do far more checking than the reactor in my frigate.

Don't blame reactors only - all docked entities in ships cause lag when undocked.

And really, the best excuse you can come up with is "Well if I don't abuse this as hard as I possibly can, it won't get fixed", after the devs just got done trying to fix it? They tried to fix it, and people doing this are just continuing the exploit loopholes to get around the developer's stated intentions.

I'm not making any excuses, there's no need for one.
Multiple reactors are perfectly valid, using default, intended behaviour.

If I were a server admin, one of my main server rules would be "No docked reactors, no docked hulls, no docked anything that crashes my server when undocked."

No truly massive docked fixed turrets that are mostly inside the hull?

There's a huge difference between being a "pro" that gets maximum effect out of the system, and being in my mind a cheater that exploits loopholes to gain unfair advantages at the cost of the entire rest of the server population.

A strange thing to say. Are "pros" not "cheating" if they use multiple reactors? Why is anyone else "cheating then? When does someone stop being a cheat and start being a pro?

The effect on a server is the same no matter who the person responsible is, so not sure why you want to apply rules for some people but not others.

 

[Magrim]

Its got more to do with protecting the ship from things like EMP weapons.

Few people build a ship with enough energy leeway to be able to withstand a full on EMP attack, and relatively few people go to the trouble to make fully self powered turrets. So, they build a ship that is on the razor's edge of power usage, get into a fight, and they get hit with EMP weapons. Suddenly their shields and weapons are causing them to consume more power than they have available, their batteries tank, and they're left floating there with no power while they get slaughtered.

This would mean that things like weapons and shields couldn't over-draw and cause blackouts.

Ah, I see. I didn't think of that even though that very scenario has happened to me. However, it feels like a workaround to having the defensive bonus of emp installed on your ship. Also, if your enemies use emp weaponry and you get your ass handed to you as a result, you will take that into consideration with the next warship you build.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to adjust power settings to all my systems for at least rp reasons, but i have no idea what would be an intuitive way to go about it. Nearly every system has to be activated in order to use power so power management is sort of already built in.

 

[Edymnion]

No truly massive docked fixed turrets that are mostly inside the hull?

Well crossing threads here, but I never said I used them, I just explained what the appeal for a fixed turret was.

Nice try though.

 

[Jojomo]

Well crossing threads here, but I never said I used them, I just explained what the appeal for a fixed turret was.

Actually you explained that you were against removing firing arcs because that would harm the use of "truly massive" internally docked fixed turrets. From that I infer that you aren't against the use of "truly massive" internally docked turrets.

Seeing as a "truly massive" internally docked fixed turret can easily cause as much (or more, depending on the relative ship sizes) collision lag as an internal reactor, your opposition to multiple reactors looks a bit skewed and inconsistent.