Devblog 2017 - 09 - 21

[Panpiper]

Yes, hence "scaling distance".

But, we don't know how much space will be required, or how quickly the distance will scale. We also do not know how much power the new reactors put out per block, and how much or even if the amount of power scales with cluster size.

So if we don't know how many power blocks we need, we don't know how much space we need for any given amount of power, and we don't know the ratio of stabilizer to reactor blocks is, then we don't know how much room these new reactors will take.

Hence we cannot say that all stabilizers have to be at the opposite end of the ship and that the only viable build method will be stick/dumbell ships, because right now we don't know how big reactors will have to be to achieve a given result.

Yes, you are completely correct. If the power scales really rapidly and then reaches a cap while the stabilizer distance is still a reasonably short distance (like 100 meters), then yes, our predictions of doom will be moot. So too however will be the entire idea of stabilizers. I cannot imagine that the developers will go to the trouble of programming something like stabilizer distance if it is not meant to actually scale beyond a very short distance. They might as well not have stabilizers.

You seem to think that your PvP competitive ship will be competitive with a small set of reactor blocks and stabilisers put only a reasonable distance away. I am saying that a competitive PvP ship will have the largest set of power blocks they possibly can and that the required stabilizers will therefore need to be a long distance away. This is in fact what the developers have said (quoted in Arkudo's post above). Maximum power will require maximum distance, which will force maximum length. Somehow you cannot see this or see the consequence.

 

[bricox01]

I'm always having trouble expressing myself properly. It takes me a while to figure it out fully.

When I say min-maxing is a player problem, I'm referring to when it is taken to a disproportionate extreme relative to those you intend to play the game with.

I have a couple of friends that are stupidly good at Streetfighter games. Virtually no one they know will play those games with them. They need to find people who play at their level.

This is why you find a server that caters to your play style and skill level. You then do a certain amount of min-maxing that is appropriate to the group you play with.

I'm not really against min-maxing, just against min-maxing taken to an inappropriate degree for the pure sake of winning. Min-maxing needs to serve an end, not be an end unto itself.

 

[Edymnion]

Maximum power will require maximum distance, which will force maximum length. Somehow you cannot see this or see the consequence.

And I repeat, how is that different from now?

If you want maximum power, there is a set minimum size you need for the reactor lines/boxes. You already build around a minimum effective size for your desired power amount. I don't care who you are, you're not getting 2 million e/sec in a 50 meter long shuttle.

Yes, if you want maximum power you will get maximum size on your reactor. But we don't know what that maximum size is. Until we do, all we can do is guess and make conjecture, but you can't make something up and then berate the devs for a problem that currently only exists in your head because of how you guess things will go.

 

[Panpiper]

And I repeat, how is that different from now?

If you want maximum power, there is a set minimum size you need for the reactor lines/boxes. You already build around a minimum effective size for your desired power amount. I don't care who you are, you're not getting 2 million e/sec in a 50 meter long shuttle.

Yes, if you want maximum power you will get maximum size on your reactor. But we don't know what that maximum size is. Until we do, all we can do is guess and make conjecture, but you can't make something up and then berate the devs for a problem that currently only exists in your head because of how you guess things will go.

Yes, as I said before, if in the new system you hit the power cap at say a mere 100 meters distance, then yes, length inflation will not be a problem. And the power system will be even more of a joke than I currently assert. They might as well get rid of stabilizers completely, for all the use they will be.

Two million power in the current system is indeed hard to get in a 50 meter ship, unless building a Borg Cube or something similarly stumpy. I can however get two million power into a 100 meter ship and still have it look very ship like. Reactor design is a HUGE part of game play when doing that however. It is however 'possible'. With the new system it will not be. With the old power system, large ships could easily hit their caps just by running a few extra lines of power reactors, though that was not the most efficient way. The richness of the old system was in squeezing power into small ships, that and docked systems, self powered turrets, etc..

And contrary to your assertion that the new system will result in greater game play for power, I am again baffled. It will in fact be vastly more simple than even the old tired trick of adding a few extra lines of power along the length of your battlewagon. All you'll have to do now is add reactor and stabiliser blocks to two concentrations.

 

[bricox01]

By correctly, I assume you mean taken to the absolute limit of efficiency.

The problem with that is that it assumes all players will play the game the same way. This is getting back to the concept that the devs are attempting to move away from: The concept of there being only a single path and formula for success. If you aren't doing it the same way the top elite crowd is doing it, then you're doing it wrong. It's why I got out of MMOs.

As Endymion said, we haven't even seen the limits yet. How can we assume that only one design of ship is valid until we have had the opportunity to spend time trying and failing with dozens of different designs until then?

Reading the dev's mission statement regarding the new power system, then watching the videos, it looks to me like they've made good progress towards that goal. I can see definite possibilities for my own ships.

I do see and acknowledge that we are certainly going to be trading one paradigm for another for the extreme PvP crowd. However, my read is that this isn't the target crowd Schine is targeting with the power update. I would then state that, based on this, Schine is moving in the right direction.

 

[bricox01]

Arkudo, I don't mean to say it is actually anti-PvP, only that it is seemingly not being built with high-level PvP play as its sole, or even primary objective.

I do think that, if you are going for the highest level of PvP play, it will always be one design paradigm that emerges as the formula for success. This is where all systems fall apart. No system can be made that cannot be min-maxed for the purposes of one player defeating another.

I'm only using the terms PvP and RP because they seem to be the ones being thrown around. I would personally prefer the terms aesthetic versus competitive in terms of building style. Pure aesthetic builders would theoretically build purely for the end "look" or theme of a ship. Pure competitive builders would thus, in theory, build purely for maximum performance without concern for aesthetics. Obviously, few of us are purely one or the other, but most will favour one building objective at least slightly over the other.

In terms of RP and PvP, there is a false dichotomy being used here, I agree. RP exists in both PvP and PvE play. It is all about how the player interacts with the game world through his character.

From what I can see in terms of Schine's approach, they would be favouring the aesthetics approach at this point it time. That would tend to lead to simplifying ship's systems to allow a greater degree of freedom to make aesthetic considerations be more functional. Hopefully, the dev team can beef up the depth of the chamber trees and such down the road. For now, I think their goal is to get a barebones system working, hence the simplicity of the mechanic.

 

[TheOmega]

Except that we do know. Stabilizers have to be n blocks away from the reactor.

Based on reactor size and shape.

Maximum power will require maximum distance.

Minimum maximum*. Stabilizers reduce inefficiency, not increase efficiency.

power caps,

No caps in this system, all power scales directly linearly.

power scales really rapidly

It won't, it will scale linearly.

we haven't even seen the limits yet.

Not really any limits because linear scaling.

 

[Panpiper]

Minimum maximum*. Stabilizers reduce inefficiency, not increase efficiency.

That is mechanically, the same thing.

No caps in this system, all power scales directly linearly.

Sadly, that confirms my worst fears. An uncapped, linear scaling magnifies my assertion of the game being utterly dominated by super-long, thin ships to it's worst level.

 

[TheOmega]

That is mechanically, the same thing.

Reducing inefficiency means bringing a system to 100% efficiency, increasing efficiency means raising it above 100%. They are completely opposite.

Sadly, that confirms my worst fears. An uncapped, linear scaling magnifies my assertion of the game being utterly dominated by super-long, thin ships to it's worst level.

The convex hull shape is included in where you can build your stabilizers. The least efficient efficient design is a super long ship with reactors inline with stabilizers. You could build the same amount of stabilizers in a different location and have a ship with a faster turn speed.

 

[Panpiper]

The convex hull shape is included in where you can build your stabilizers. The least efficient efficient design is a super long ship with reactors inline with stabilizers. You could build the same amount of stabilizers in a different location and have a ship with a faster turn speed.

The maximum efficiency and effectiveness will be with two plates, one block thick, of identical height and width to to each other, one at the front of a kilometers long axis and the other at the other end of that axis. Add blocks to the plates until the stabilisers show inefficiency.

 

[dwwojcik]

How the hell is that thing supposed to turn though? Sounds like it'd be a good reactor but not a good ship.

 

[TheOmega]

And now your ship cannot turn.

 

[Panpiper]

And now your ship cannot turn.

Yes, wonderful mechanic, right? Now all ships built to be combat effective will have the worst possible turn rate that you can live with. Knowing all the while that anyone who decided to accept an even worse turn rate will outclass you. Great game design mechanics. It will be SO much fun flying slugboats all the time.

 

[TheOmega]

Yes, wonderful mechanic, right? Now all ships built to be combat effective will have the worst possible turn rate that you can live with. Knowing all the while that anyone who decided to accept an even worse turn rate will outclass you. Great game design mechanics. It will be SO much fun flying slugboats all the time.

And this is where you are wrong, as well as many of your other points. Oh wait, this is your only point. This is far from the best way to make a combat effective ship, because how can an unmoving object participate in combat? Turrets! And turrets don't fully share shields (I think, I haven't checked in a while). And chambers probably add a shield penetrating mechanic. And if not, somebody can get their friends to help them destroy this random hunk of slag that is a waste of resources.

The points are:
Any design has a specific counter-meta, even if it's just more DPS.
Most people aren't going to willingly build something just for it to be an unkillable eyesore, because unkillable and eyesore are the worst possible traits for something in a video game to have.

 

[Vitez Kolya]

The maximum efficiency and effectiveness will be with two plates, one block thick, of identical height and width to to each other, one at the front of a kilometers long axis and the other at the other end of that axis. Add blocks to the plates until the stabilisers show inefficiency.

I have a question, isn't most ships already built long and narrow already? Of course not all ships right now are built that way, but it seems most of them are. So why is this an issue?

 

[dwwojcik]

Yes, wonderful mechanic, right? Now all ships built to be combat effective will have the worst possible turn rate that you can live with. Knowing all the while that anyone who decided to accept an even worse turn rate will outclass you. Great game design mechanics. It will be SO much fun flying slugboats all the time.

Wow, it's almost as if... there's a penalty for prioritizing power production over all else! Can you imagine such a thing!?!

 

[DrTarDIS]

The maximum efficiency and effectiveness will be with two plates, one block thick, of identical height and width to to each other, one at the front of a kilometers long axis and the other at the other end of that axis. Add blocks to the plates until the stabilisers show inefficiency.

I' going to split a hair here, because geometry.

For the exact same number of blocks N as your 2 plates method, an equally "optimal power generated" can [probably] be created with ~2/3 the length by making it "wider".

Because of the way distance is said to be calculated, and using some basic math on spheres: place reactors in spherical blob, place stabilisers in the intersection of a cube and sphere shape, the eight "corners" of a cube as they instersect with the overal sphere shape(or one, two, or four of them). to maximize the number fit vs the space occupied and the linear maximal dimensions in cube-space.

This shape here might explain it to you more intuitively. assume the sphere is the "optimal distance" from a central reactor, it's the place where the sphere is "covered" by the cube bits that you'd put stabilisers to min/max your turningpenalty/power generation.

Math, y'all should study it a bit.

Edit: just to be clear, there is a 1:1 linear solution like you said before, but it's the one that's corner-corner across the axis. in that case an "optimal ship" would have the reactors as the "center" and the stabilizers as any one corner. This would yield the best(most compressed) "cube dimensions." One could expect min/max NPC ships, and "single role" PvP ships to follow this paradigm. (discading the other ~7/8 of that model)
By extension one would expect multi-role ships, that have multiple reactors, to follow a paradigm of reactors in the corners, sharing a blob of stabilizers in the center: up to eight different roles(reactors in an individual corner) with dedicated chambers for each somewhere inside that sphere(since chambers don't have spacing dimensions) while stabilizers shared from all reactors would be a small blob in the center of the sphere.

 

[Vitez Kolya]

I' going to split a hair here, because geometry.

For the exact same number of blocks N as your 2 plates method, an equally "optimal power generated" can [probably] be created with ~2/3 the length by making it "wider".

Because of the way distance is said to be calculated, and using some basic math on spheres: place reactors in spherical blob, place stabilisers in the intersection of a cube and sphere shape, the eight "corners" of a cube as they instersect with the overal sphere shape(or one, two, or four of them). to maximize the number fit vs the space occupied and the linear maximal dimensions in cube-space.

This shape here might explain it to you more intuitively. assume the sphere is the "optimal distance" from a central reactor, it's the place where the sphere is "covered" by the cube bits that you'd put stabilisers to min/max your turningpenalty/power generation.

Math, y'all should study it a bit.

So the return of the "doom cubes"?

Spoiler: Doom Cube

 

[TheOmega]

More like people who want to build ships a certain way will build them that way regardless. Why is this even a problem? Side note: turning should be more mass-based than dimension based anyway. I really don't think power gen is going to be as big of a problem as you are all making it out to be.

 

[DrTarDIS]

So the return of the "doom cubes"?

Spoiler: Doom Cube

View attachment 45114

you can always expect doom-cubes because of the dimension-penalties on turning. That's what makes them, NOT POWER. Even the "tower" or "delta wing" PvP ships are outcrops of this system: sacrificing turning/rotation in one set of dimensions to gain it in more useful ones.

FYI: I've edited that other post because I neglected to mention the "best case" 1:1 Pan was talking about originally as being an angled ship.