Edymnion
Carebear Extraordinaire!
Lol, well its okay for orks.
That one...made me laugh in a very dark way.
I agree with you overall, but i'm laughing so hard at it.
Lol, well its okay for orks.
That one...made me laugh in a very dark way.
I agree with you overall, but i'm laughing so hard at it.
The top off power requirement is going to be MUCH lower than the power required to fully charge it.Nope. There is such thing as the top-off power draw. If you don't produce enough power - the weapon won't fire at all. Neat, huh?
One way strategic bombers could have been made viable is with the capacitors that would provide the energy to keep weapons charged.
Unfortunately, the power capacitors are being removed with the rest of the old system. No bombers with nukes for you I'm afraid.
I'm not meaning to suggest that rp-ers or pvp-ers spend more time designing their ships, only that they typically design them differently.bricox01 that is not an issue Pvpers vs "Roleplayers".
- The power is the true core to balance game mechanics at Starmade. [Real big explanation.]
- Rpers are not the only ones that "design" ships [Believe or not this game is mostly at the current stage about building.]
- The "better shape stuff" of the new power system works with all type of players and ships. [Independently of the type of server.]
We don't know that stick designs are going to be any more prevelent than they are today. We just know that there will be room in the ship for things like interiors.Wrong.
New power system only have 1 way to maximize it, big chunks of blocks at oposite sides of one entity. [The large shape = the better the energy output.]
On a few words, ships that are not an "stick" shape are going to be underpowered. [Forget to see dececent powerred Star treck ship shapes as i read from another user some post ago.]
So someone who studies the rules of a game so as to learn how to win the game, is a "problem"? People who read books on chess and study chess to mini-max their strategies, they are a problem for the game of chess? Such people perhaps spoil the fun of chess?"Min-maxing is not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the players."
You are flat out wrong. The old system allowed players to use all three dimensions of their ship with regard to generating power. The new system allows only one dimension. The end result is that someone building say a Star Trek Enterprise ship will ALWAYS lose, regardless of how competent they are with the rules and building, to a ship that was built using the same mass, but is four times longer. Only one dimension counts for power, and as a result ALL ships built to be effective will be long and thin.Obviously, any system put in place can and will be min-maxed to heck. Overall, I think the new system will accomplish what it set out to do: free up ship designers in terms of how they can design ships.
1) Again, we don't know how it works. You can't make this claim.You are flat out wrong. The old system allowed players to use all three dimensions of their ship with regard to generating power. The new system allows only one dimension. The end result is that someone building say a Star Trek Enterprise ship will ALWAYS lose, regardless of how competent they are with the rules and building, to a ship that was built using the same mass, but is four times longer. Only one dimension counts for power, and as a result ALL ships built to be effective will be long and thin.
Except that we do know. Stabilizers have to be n blocks away from the reactor.We don't know that stick designs are going to be any more prevelent than they are today.
There was ALWAYS room for interiors. People not building interiors had absolutely nothing to do with interiors being problematic, and everything to do with interiors being useless. The key to getting people to build interiors is not to 'force' players to have useless space, but to make those interiors useful (as in the planned crew and quarters update).We don't know that stick designs are going to be any more prevelent than they are today. We just know that there will be room in the ship for things like interiors.
Except that we do know. Stabilizers have to be n blocks away from the reactor.
Therefore the optimal way is to build a reactor blob, then a stabilizer blob n blocks away. A no-brainer design even a two year-old can grasp.
Whether that means that ships will resemble two pods, barbells or Heighliner-like cylinders is yet to be seen.
And again, how is this different from now?As for stick designs... OF COURSE sticks are going to be more prevalent. It baffles me how you can not see that. If only one dimension counts for power, PvPers will maximize that dimension. Period. End stop. Maximizing one dimension means building a stick. Anyone who fails to maximize one dimension is not building for competitive PvP, and WILL lose to someone who has.
I've spent forty years obsessively devouring build system rules. Indeed for ten years, my profession required that I be able to analyse rules systems to find exploits and problems (I was the purchasing manager for one of the largest game stores on Earth). We DO know enough from what they have already told us.1) Again, we don't know how it works. You can't make this claim.
Yes, you can put them anywhere, and if you do so, you will be building a substandard ship. For maximum effect, for maximum power, you will need to put stabilizers as far from your power reactor as possible and add blocks to maximize output. If you do not, your only effective option will be to reduce the size of your reactor. Maximum power will require maximum distance. Failing to use maximum distance will mean accepting less power.2) How is it one dimensional when stabilizers can be put anywhere? The demonstration just showed a small working example of it being used in one dimension. It also showed diagrams of three dimensional usage by making rings around reactors. The only thing we know is that there needs to be some space between the reactors and the stabilizers, and the bigger the reactor, the more space it needs. You can put those stabilizers anywhere in three dimensional space you want.
The distance between the warp nacelles is substantially less than the distance from the front to the rear. Putting power reactors in one nacelle and stabilizers in the other will result in LESS power than if you put the power reactors at the extreme rear and the stabilisers on the nose. It is not a question of putting the stabilizers at 'some' distance from the power reactors. For maximum power you want the largest quantity of power reactors, and having such a larger set of power reactors will require having the stabilizers (and more of them) at a further distance.3) If anything a Trek style ship is at an inherent advantage here, because its pre-designed to give you space to put stabilizers in the nacelles far away from the reactors in the main hull.
This is not what the video said.Yes, you can put them anywhere, and if you do so, you will be building a substandard ship. For maximum effect, for maximum power, you will need to put stabilizers as far from your power reactor as possible
Are you impliying RP people don't play well ?If you don't like studying rules, and you don't like thinking about how to play well, that's fine, there are RP servers to play on.
I am stating that the vast majority of RPers do not build their ships to the same competitive standards as do PvPers. From the contest of mini-maxed PvP, no, RPers do not play well. Of course equally, from the standards of RPers, PvPers do not play well. RPers and PvPers are usually playing different games. That said, it is perfectly possible to build a ship that is competitive in both, such as Drakkart's Scimitar. The vast majority however do not bother. They either make their ships powerful, or they make them look good. Rarely do the two coincide from the perspective of RP however.Are you impliying RP people don't play well ?
That is indeed precisely what that means.To prevent a player from filling his structure with as many Reactor and Stabilizer blocks as possible, we add a single rule:
- The stabilizer groups need to be a minimum amount of distance away from any reactor group. The distance needed between the Reactor and Stabilizer groups all depend on the reactor sizes of that entity.
Source: StarMade Ship Systems 2.0
Correct me if i am incorrect but that means the bigger the chunks of power blocks the bigger the distance between them, correct?
Yes, hence "scaling distance".Correct me if i am incorrect but that means the bigger the chunks of power blocks the bigger the distance between them, correct?