Devblog 2017 - 10 - 13

[Jojomo]

(my OCD woul not let me place in-effcient stabilizor blocks EVER).
Thus me and other players will find every possible way to break and get around the system, even if it does take a lot more effort than just trying to work within it imo.

.

Even if you remind yourself that by placing then at closer distances you'll be maximising total ship efficien y?

I don't think reducing stabiliser efficiency is breaking the system. It's a feature not a bug.

 

[GnomeKing]

(that all said i still think 'hammer-head dumb-bells will be the obvious core choice for power focused new builds :/ )

 

[Dire Venom]

(that all said i still think 'hammer-head dumb-bells will be the obvious core choice for power focused new builds :/ )

Or... you know ships with their various parts dispersed over a large area :P Have the reactor 1km behind and bellow all other parts, weapons mounted in space, stabilizors spread out a few hundred meters above everything else etc. Resonable sized shield bits for all :P
You could make it look nice as well if you make each part look like a seperate ship :D!

 

[Valiant70]

Okay we definitely need a breakaway system.

 

[GnomeKing]

Further Re-fitting:

another ship: this one smaller in all dimensions and less mass than previous but with same power regen from moderately efficient & compact XYZ lines - the XYZ threading took time to make relatively compact - this ship has a much higher proportion of armor than previous and is slower, with less interior (but not a systems brick).

in power 2.0 i can not match the same output (to ship above) without substantial changes to dimensions and hull - specifically length.
At this point the restriction to single dimension with stabilizers begins to bite- all i can do is make the whole thing longer and spam stabilizers in the front end :/ - the compact/powerful shape in power 1.0 was achieved by working in 3 dimensions - in power 2.0 this carefully built ship must be restricted to relativity half the power of slightly larger ship that previously it matched ... :/ - this feels restrictive

Not being able to work in 3 dimensions for stabilizers quickly feels restrictive, despite the apparent early feeling of freedom

(edit: as in having option to meaningfully build parts of power systems in places/directions all along ship, rather than basically just spam-boxes at each ends of a stick...)

 

[Jojomo]

Okay we definitely need a breakaway system.

Or conduits between reactor and stabilisers.
[doublepost=1510356633,1510356292][/doublepost]

Not being able to work in 3 dimensions for stabilizers quickly feels restrictive, despite the apparent early feeling of freedom

I don't think replicating power 1.0 ships was a goal for power 2.0.

I'm not sure if I should be able to see an image of a ship above, so I may be misunderstanding, but you aren't restricted to one dimension, you can place as many groups of stabilisers as you like, in any direction from the reactor.
To take that to the extreme, you could build a spherical shell of stabilisers around a central reactor, for example.

 

[Neon_42]

So, it has now been over a month since the original post. Can we get a status update?

 

[AWildSylveon]

Only downside i find with the latest dev builds is the factions, any time you create a faction, it crashes the game and results in the probability of it making the faction or wiping the sector your in.

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

Tested out the new dev build with some 1:1 scale ships. Shields weren't working in the last build, but are now working. I made a Danube-class runabout and an Xwing.

Danube had way too little shielding and I had to cram in a ton more capacitors. At that point, my regen went negative, so I needed more rechargers...but placing them just about 4 blocks apart made the smaller group non-functional and the ship was too small to have separate groups. This was very troublesome to do without having exposed systems and having an interior.
It seems like small ship design will start with reactor surrounded by a shell of rechargers, then stabilizers in the nose, then weapons. You really can't have rechargers in separate groups in something runabout-sized (23x13x5).
The good news is that the Danube was still fine on power.

I'd like to also mention that the new shield system's shield numbers are over double those of the old system. That Xwing's 4 capacitors put it at 1.8k in the new system and 649 in the old system (tooltip still available), which is still measly, but if the numbers translate into damage the same, it seems like shields got a significant buff.

 

[Valiant70]

To take that to the extreme, you could build a spherical shell of stabilisers around a central reactor, for example.

I think something like this should provide a bonus, reducing the minimum distance from the reactor by a certain factor.

 

[Antikristianos]

Further Re-fitting:

another ship: this one smaller in all dimensions and less mass than previous but with same power regen from moderately efficient & compact XYZ lines - the XYZ threading took time to make relatively compact - this ship has a much higher proportion of armor than previous and is slower, with less interior (but not a systems brick).

in power 2.0 i can not match the same output (to ship above) without substantial changes to dimensions and hull - specifically length.
At this point the restriction to single dimension with stabilizers begins to bite- all i can do is make the whole thing longer and spam stabilizers in the front end :/ - the compact/powerful shape in power 1.0 was achieved by working in 3 dimensions - in power 2.0 this carefully built ship must be restricted to realativley half the power of slightly larger ship that previously it matched ... :/ - this feels restrictive

Not being able to work in 3 dimensions for stabilizers quickly feels restrictive, despite the apparent early feeling of freedom

I think something like this should provide a bonus, reducing the minimum distance from the reactor by a certain factor.

something like this?:

uhh i havent read ALL pages of this thread
so i dont know if anyone has suggested it already but i have read at least 5 pages where ppl stated that stabilizers where "useless" or "stupid" because they would limmit the designe options for players.

my solution to this problem would be fairly easy:
keep Stabilizers and their distance requirement!
BUT: make the distance requirement a little bit more complex than "only one axis"

let it be like if you put only one groupe of stabilizers on your ship it would look like this:
(the "stik ship" version, 100% distance to reactor needed for 100% efficiency of stabilizers)

if you put another "axis" to the stabilizers could look like this:
(still same block count for stabilizers to get 100% eficiency but reduced distance to the reactor needed)

and so on:

assuming the block count for 100% efficiency at 100% distance is a "fixed value depending on reactor size".
in this example each groupe of stabilizers has the sice of "fixed value depending on reactror sice"/"number of groups"

- Placing a reactor with only one group of stabilizers stays as it is.
- Placing a reactor with 2 groups of stabilizers (on the same axis: left and right, above and below,..) let the distance needed for 100%efficiency be reduced by 15%
- Placing a reactor with 2 groups of stabilizers (on different axis: in front and above, in front and left,...) let the distance be reduced by 10%
- placing a reactor with 6 groups of stabilizers (oner on each axis) should give a 75% shorter distance for 100% efficiency
------------------------------------------------------
and BOOM: we are back at the death cubes...
------------------------------------------------------
- so in this system we would need some variation options like: placing one groupe set threshold farther than required could further shorten the distance needed for the other groups to get to 100% efficiency.
- alternative: making one group bigger than the required blocks/groupe could reduce the needed distance for the other groups...

this system would most likely encourage builds where the reactor's are somewhant centered in the ship while the stabilizers are spread around where they best fit but it would in my opinion allow close to unlimited freedom in Shipdesign while still being able to get 100% out of the reactors.

and who's to say but maybe the stabilizers get additional purposes while the system developes so to just remove them doesn't sound like the best way to solve the problem

 

[UrstMcRedHead]

I just came back after a couple of weeks to see what kind of cannon systems I can support on a 180m long ship with Power2.0.
TL:DR the answer is none. I could only cram 700 blocks into this space with a max output of 70k power.
If I wanted to get the 600,000 power that I would need to run this cannon, and the thrusters I would have to put 1mil reactor/stab blocks at 0% efficiency.

Here's the link:

 

[Zekester81]

Alright. I can now say I just hate the whole power 2.o. I'd rather keep what we already had. We're still just filling space with system blocks, just different ones. Some of the earlier dev builds were ok, not great, just ok. The latest ones I just don't like at all. There are some interesting things going on besides power but the power it's self sucks. And the shields, hate them.

 

[Jojomo]

I just came back after a couple of weeks to see what kind of cannon systems I can support on a 180m long ship with Power2.0.
TL:DR the answer is none. I could only cram 700 blocks into this space with a max output of 70k power.
If I wanted to get the 600,000 power that I would need to run this cannon, and the thrusters I would have to put 1mil reactor/stab blocks at 0% efficiency.

You've made the same assumption many people are making with power 2.0, but actually you shouldn't place your stabilisers at 100% efficiency separation distance.

The way to build is place your reactor, then place your stabilisers in the place you want them to be (within reason), then add more stabilisers until you get 100% reactor output.

Here's a 180m ship with 600,000 e/s, in 200.171
(my power system is an ugly shape here, but you don't have to do the same, I'm just lazy)

 

[GnomeKing]

maybe it wont be exactly the same as Jojomo's image, but very very nearly the same ....

There is no point placing stabilizer in 50% or less ranges > unless you especially enjoy a ship full of stabilizer spam-cubes

So there is just the basic 'I-shaped' / balls-on-stick approach...very dull.

Previously i could carefully place and expand/improve power lines by using various aspects of a ships length/width/height...now i can just stick balls out the back and slap a hammer-head on the front...yippee

With power 1.0, having regen and capacity are overlapping systems with different rules and could be built around each other > now there is just one option ...fill apposite ends with reactors and spam(sry, stabilizers) as much as feasible without being a forward facing Plate-of-spam (sry, stabilizer). 1.0, with complementary aspects to generation and capacity had way more potential for variation and interest in the long-term.

The more I mess with power 2.0, the less interesting it becomes > there is no real 'challenge', just a question of whether i can be bothered to add fish-tails and pig-snouts to existing hulls or not.

Was power 1.0 was 'too complicated' to get people playing? probably not (imo), but I don't think 1-dimensional systems like power 2.0 (in terms of the building-game) will sustain peoples interest either.

There is no possibility to 'do better power' > just block spam of stabilizers, which is fucking-dull-as-shit (IMHO)

I repeat; Ships with well-made/compact XYZ reactors suffer badly in 2.0; 'oversized' and/or long-stick ships that previously had sub-optimal performance due to poor XYZ implementation are now much better than their more carefully built 1.0 peers.

Was that the intention of 2.0 ?
(a 'level playing field' (whatever that might be) is one thing...But this is currently a Power Pancake :/)

 

[Jojomo]

maybe it wont be exactly the same as Jojomo's image, but very very nearly the same ....

I think it was this thread that I said already: you can make your power system any shape you like, even a spherical shell of stabilisers around a central reactor.
The power system only becomes "linear" in shape if the designer thinks about ship hulls as a primarily "linear" shape...and in that case they've only got themselves to blame.

There is no point placing stabilizer in 50% or less ranges > unless you especially enjoy a ship full of stabilizer spam-cubes

So there is just the basic 'I-shaped' / balls-on-stick approach...very dull.

Does power 2.0 create ships "full of stabilisers" or "two balls on a stick"? Can't be both...
The power system above had stabiliser efficiency around 35%. Depending on what percentage mass you're happy using for power, you can aim WAY below 50% stabiliser efficiency.

Previously i could carefully place and expand/improve power lines by using various aspects of a ships length/width/height...now i can just stick balls out the back and slap a hammer-head on the front...yippee

"carefully place and expand/improve power lines by using various aspects of a ships length/width/height" ===> "make three intersecting sticks at the widest, longest, and deepest parts of the hull."

Dressing power 1.0 up in "better" language doesn't make it any more interesting than it was.

 

[Jananton]

Silly question maybe, but in the latest build v0.200.171, how do I fire the build in jump drive? After loading, left mouse button, the right mouse button does nothing, what am I missing or is this a bug?

Greets,

Jan

 

[Antikristianos]

Silly question maybe, but in the latest build v0.200.171, how do I fire the build in jump drive? After loading, left mouse button, the right mouse button does nothing, what am I missing or is this a bug?

Greets,

Jan

its a bug.

 

[Chckn Wildstyle]

I wonder, oh I wonder, when the next dev blog will be.
Maybe when they said 2 weeks, it was 2 to the power of three?
An update on what is happening for us players is not clear to see.
I've been checking the news each day in hope, is this... just me?

 

[0ldSkull]

I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective.