Dimensional Power Gen: The Bane of Starmade Ship Design

    Joined
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages
    228
    Reaction score
    145
    no limit of power relative to size of ship, just size/properties of the reactor group.

    in power 1.0, capacity and regen are not actually capped, just diminishing returns on huge group sizes

    But we can only talk about 'power' in the abstract for so long > the 'smaller' ship could be small/powerful and 99.9% reactor/ect blocks...not much good for any useful task.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Oh, I see. How would you limit reactor output relative to ship size then without using ship size to calculate it?
    By making power output a function of power system size - you power output will then be limited to the largest power system that you can fit in your ship (basically like real life)
     
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2017
    Messages
    39
    Reaction score
    10
    Well, I made some suggestions earlier in other topic but I think this is the right place.

    Actual problem imho is deadly needle weapon concept. Which prevents me from making quite big reactor with distand stabilizer and powerfull gun in long needle concept?

    I liked the old effectivity system of sum dimmensions of reactor, but I hated ship filled with reactors and guns and I think this was the problem of old system.

    But what if we will make these changes:
    - reactor and stabilizer blocks will be really heavy (100-1000x more times heavier than advanced armour)? So the ships with long distant stabilizer simply dont turn at all.
    - Reactor and stabilizer should be connected with conduit, breaking this line will disable stabilizing effect and reactor fall to its effectiveness, so it is better use more these conduits. This should add some "backbone" of the ship.
    - Stabilizer group of block efficiency will depend also on sum of X,Y,Z dimensions of stabilizer group. And this group should be also made by connecting smaller groups with conduits. This should add some "ribcage" of the ship.
    - Make power block and stabilizer not only extremly heavy but also expensive, conduits should be light and expensive.

    So as a result we have power generator, which needs stabilizing. But also exists minimal distance for stabilizers (like now in power system 2.0). And also you need to make stabilizing construction with maximum X,Y and Z dimmensions. It could be done by stabilizer blocks, which are really heavy and it is not effective, or make it from smaller stabilizing groups, conected with conduits, which counts as one group with large dimensions.

    All of this should lead to quite free construction of 3D ships with stabilizers on the edges, neccesary of vulnerable connections by conduits. Deadly needle is not effective because high mass far away from center will punish it's manueverability a lot and more "cube" like ships will benefit from more effective 3D stabilization system. Flying spaghetti monster is very vulnerable with this suggestions, because U need to protect well conduits with some layer of armor.

    It allows to make "dead star" (dead cube) concept as like as star trek concept.

    And some suggestions more:
    - reactor power regen should also serve as radar signature, so if U turn off reactor U can be much more stealthy
    - weapon and turret systems should be huge radar signature, so shio could be stealthy or well armed but not both
    - battery should have more capacity (increased weight and cost a lot) and U can run your ship only on batteries with turned off reactor to be super sneaky :)
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    no limit of power relative to size of ship, just size/properties of the reactor group.

    in power 1.0, capacity and regen are not actually capped, just diminishing returns on huge group sizes

    But we can only talk about 'power' in the abstract for so long > the 'smaller' ship could be small/powerful and 99.9% reactor/ect blocks...not much good for any useful task.
    By making power output a function of power system size - you power output will then be limited to the largest power system that you can fit in your ship (basically like real life)
    Hmm. That could probably even work well enough for balancing resource costs. After some thought, I was probably trying to be to exact in trying to determine the cost factor by using the entire ship.

    Which brings us back to the point of the op. From a perspective of balancing power, what characteristic of the reactor group should be used to calculate output? Disregarding the ship it's installed in of course.

    Well, I made some suggestions earlier in other topic but I think this is the right place.

    Actual problem imho is deadly needle weapon concept. Which prevents me from making quite big reactor with distand stabilizer and powerfull gun in long needle concept?

    I liked the old effectivity system of sum dimmensions of reactor, but I hated ship filled with reactors and guns and I think this was the problem of old system.

    But what if we will make these changes:
    - reactor and stabilizer blocks will be really heavy (100-1000x more times heavier than advanced armour)? So the ships with long distant stabilizer simply dont turn at all.
    - Reactor and stabilizer should be connected with conduit, breaking this line will disable stabilizing effect and reactor fall to its effectiveness, so it is better use more these conduits. This should add some "backbone" of the ship.
    - Stabilizer group of block efficiency will depend also on sum of X,Y,Z dimensions of stabilizer group. And this group should be also made by connecting smaller groups with conduits. This should add some "ribcage" of the ship.
    - Make power block and stabilizer not only extremly heavy but also expensive, conduits should be light and expensive.

    So as a result we have power generator, which needs stabilizing. But also exists minimal distance for stabilizers (like now in power system 2.0). And also you need to make stabilizing construction with maximum X,Y and Z dimmensions. It could be done by stabilizer blocks, which are really heavy and it is not effective, or make it from smaller stabilizing groups, conected with conduits, which counts as one group with large dimensions.

    All of this should lead to quite free construction of 3D ships with stabilizers on the edges, neccesary of vulnerable connections by conduits. Deadly needle is not effective because high mass far away from center will punish it's manueverability a lot and more "cube" like ships will benefit from more effective 3D stabilization system. Flying spaghetti monster is very vulnerable with this suggestions, because U need to protect well conduits with some layer of armor.

    It allows to make "dead star" (dead cube) concept as like as star trek concept.

    And some suggestions more:
    - reactor power regen should also serve as radar signature, so if U turn off reactor U can be much more stealthy
    - weapon and turret systems should be huge radar signature, so shio could be stealthy or well armed but not both
    - battery should have more capacity (increased weight and cost a lot) and U can run your ship only on batteries with turned off reactor to be super sneaky :)
    Interesting thoughts. I would like having batteries back and giving them a stealth mechanic would be pretty cool. Also ship sig based on energy usage is a nice touch as well. You should post a suggestion if you haven't already. Though I would let the devs worry about mass and capacities.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Which brings us back to the point of the op. From a perspective of balancing power, what characteristic of the reactor group should be used to calculate output? Disregarding the ship it's installed in of course.
    I'm assuming you mean the entire power system if it has multiple block types, not just reactors on their own?
    That's a tougher question. Probably both of block counts and dimensions/volume should matter (mass should matter, but it's a function of block counts anyway).

    If only dimensions were used: a small handful of blocks could be used to give massive dimensions, so that would be broken.
    If only mass were used: only one type of block would be used (the heaviest of the power system blocks), so that would be broken.
    If only block counts were used: blocks could be dotted around randomly (or spaghettified) which I dislike, or all block types could be mashed together in a single blob, which kind of defeats the point of having multiple block types in the power system (and I like multiple block types in the power system).

    If you did actually only mean just the reactor, not the whole power system, I personally would use the total number of reactor blocks completely surrounded/enclosed by other reactor blocks. Or perhaps to make it a softer requirement, rather than a hard one, give each reactor block a base output, then give it a bonus for every adjacent reactor block.
    If it were my decision to make, which it isn't...
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    504
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    I personally would use the total number of reactor blocks completely surrounded/enclosed by other reactor blocks. Or perhaps to make it a softer requirement, rather than a hard one, give each reactor block a base output, then give it a bonus for every adjacent reactor block.
    If it were my decision to make, which it isn't...
    This I could easily see being effective^^.
    Simple, easy to understand, softcap, and not limited by ship shape/dimensions/function.
    Also, did I mention that it just makes sense :P?
     
    Joined
    Dec 9, 2015
    Messages
    150
    Reaction score
    78
    I can not fathom how you don't understand that statement. Can a 100m long ship be built using 50k blocks? Yes. Can a 200m long ship be built using 25k blocks? Yes. Who cares what hull/system blocks are used, It doesn't matter. The fact that the longer but cheaper ship produces more power is unbalanced

    It would bring back more variety to building power systems, somthing I'm for, but not necessarily balance the energy output disparity I metion above your quote. Though I'm not really sure why they took it out in the first place. Perhaps when weapons are overhauled it will be more clear.
    and who cares how much power a 25K block ship can have... you won't even get enough systems in this ship to use all the power you can get.
    i don't need a Ship to have a power generation of 10.000.000e/s, even if i could squeez it in somehow, when i only need 100.000e/s to power my ships systems.

    and they even lowered the overall power consumption of close to every system so that you can make them smaller.
    you saw that right? weapon blocks use a little more energy/block now but do 3 times the damage... (values are still in flux)

    they dont want you to build ships that are thight fit with systems. and so they will not go back to anything that could be built this way without bad ship performance.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    Sorry for the late reply Jojo. Irl getting in the way.

    I'm assuming you mean the entire power system if it has multiple block types, not just reactors on their own?
    That's a tougher question. Probably both of block counts and dimensions/volume should matter (mass should matter, but it's a function of block counts anyway).

    If only dimensions were used: a small handful of blocks could be used to give massive dimensions, so that would be broken.
    If only mass were used: only one type of block would be used (the heaviest of the power system blocks), so that would be broken.
    If only block counts were used: blocks could be dotted around randomly (or spaghettified) which I dislike, or all block types could be mashed together in a single blob, which kind of defeats the point of having multiple block types in the power system (and I like multiple block types in the power system).
    Yes, that is what I meant.

    I would argue that if dimensions were used at all, it would still inherently allow for exploitation. Unless restrictions to build style and/or limits placed on the mechanic itself (such as: a min/max distance mechanic) were used of course. Why even use dims at that point though? You're either going to upset the players, restricting their designs or pretty much make dims irrelevant.

    If block count was use there would be absolutely no advantage to spaghettifying your reactor. It wouldn't generate any more power than a reactor that didn't. Dotting reactor blocks around would be present in any system that didn't have a grouping mechanic to prevent this. All block types mashed together also assumes there wouldn't be a mechanic in place to support the different types and also prevent this problem.

    If you did actually only mean just the reactor, not the whole power system, I personally would use the total number of reactor blocks completely surrounded/enclosed by other reactor blocks. Or perhaps to make it a softer requirement, rather than a hard one, give each reactor block a base output, then give it a bonus for every adjacent reactor block.
    If it were my decision to make, which it isn't...
    I personally like this idea and believe it would be a great starting point for fleshing out a solid power system that doesn't benefit one shape over another.

    and who cares how much power a 25K block ship can have... you won't even get enough systems in this ship to use all the power you can get.
    i don't need a Ship to have a power generation of 10.000.000e/s, even if i could squeez it in somehow, when i only need 100.000e/s to power my ships systems.

    and they even lowered the overall power consumption of close to every system so that you can make them smaller.
    you saw that right? weapon blocks use a little more energy/block now but do 3 times the damage... (values are still in flux)

    they dont want you to build ships that are thight fit with systems. and so they will not go back to anything that could be built this way without bad ship performance.
    This thread was posted to discuss the unbalanced and restrictive nature of using distance to calculate energy output. Any number I used is irrelevant.

    It's unbalanced because the longer ship has a higher maximum potential for energy output, only because of it's shape not because of how well it's built. Even though the shorter ship could be 10x as massive.

    It's restrictive because it will influence the design of a ship and steer the player into making ships that are longer on a single axis in order to be competitive. Whichever player takes it to more extreme levels than another will have the advantage. Unless the ship is built solely for the purpose of rp. In which case output takes a backseat to ship shape.
     
    Joined
    Dec 9, 2015
    Messages
    150
    Reaction score
    78
    This thread was posted to discuss the unbalanced and restrictive nature of using distance to calculate energy output. Any number I used is irrelevant.

    It's unbalanced because the longer ship has a higher maximum potential for energy output, only because of it's shape not because of how well it's built. Even though the shorter ship could be 10x as massive.

    It's restrictive because it will influence the design of a ship and steer the player into making ships that are longer on a single axis in order to be competitive. Whichever player takes it to more extreme levels than another will have the advantage. Unless the ship is built solely for the purpose of rp. In which case output takes a backseat to ship shape.
    is this more like it:
    (Quote from another tread)
    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
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Why even use dims at that point though? You're either going to upset the players, restricting their designs or pretty much make dims irrelevant.

    If block count was use there would be absolutely no advantage to spaghettifying your reactor.
    Using dimension also adds a third aspect to what then becomes a "design triangle" of mass, power, and size. You can only really design something that's good in two of those categories, not all three. For me, this is an absolutely fantastic thing to achieve is an artificial design environment.
    (It's not necessarily perfect, possibly a better one would have been mass, power, and cost as the triangle, but SM's economy isn't currently capable of making that work)

    The main point of spaghettification is to make ships extremely difficult to hit/damage. So unless a mechanic is introduced to give it a negative side it'll keep being meta.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    is this more like it:
    (Quote from another tread)
    Good suggestion. Better than what we have. Very similar to the old power mechanic. You should post it in the suggestions sub. I will say though that it has a favored shape and I am adamantly against giving a specific shape an advantage over another.

    Using dimension also adds a third aspect to what then becomes a "design triangle" of mass, power, and size. You can only really design something that's good in two of those categories, not all three. For me, this is an absolutely fantastic thing to achieve is an artificial design environment.
    (It's not necessarily perfect, possibly a better one would have been mass, power, and cost as the triangle, but SM's economy isn't currently capable of making that work)
    Size and power are on the same point of the design triangle. Decreasing size decreases power, increasing it increases power. I'm all for give and take but why build a power system that rewards one ship shape over another? You either have an ideal shape or you don't. I personally want to build a ship that is competitive in at least it's weight class, without worrying about the look of my ship being a detriment.

    The main point of spaghettification is to make ships extremely difficult to hit/damage. So unless a mechanic is introduced to give it a negative side it'll keep being meta.
    It is definitely a boon but it is not the main point of spaghetti ships. It's not even an exploit imo. Just a design technique that anyone could use, even on a more normal looking ship.

    The point of building spaghetti is the capability to mass ratio is so insanely high compared to that of a normal ship with the same mass. This is the exploit of spaghetti meta most people are talking about, which basing power gen off block count (in the reactor only) would completely fix.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Size and power are on the same point of the design triangle. Decreasing size decreases power, increasing it increases power. I'm all for give and take but why build a power system that rewards one ship shape over another?
    No they aren't. It's true that none of the three points are independent from the other, but none are fully dependent on one of the others either.
    By "size" I basically mean overall dimensions (of reactor plus stabilisers), and I can alter power with out altering overall dimensions (for example), therefore size and power aren't the same thing.

    You either have an ideal shape or you don't. I personally want to build a ship that is competitive in at least it's weight class, without worrying about the look of my ship being a detriment.
    If you want to be competitive in PvP you have to consider ship shape even if you ignore power.
    Power 1.0 also affected ship shape: small dimensions on one axis (relative to the other two) meant an inefficient design (more total ship mass for the same power, assuming a continuous hull), and small dimensions on two axes meant extremely inefficient design.
    I don't think shape should be independent of performance. I think it should definitely be related somehow, and I think the way the power system currently achieves that is pretty good.

    It is definitely a boon but it is not the main point of spaghetti ships.
    I disagree, and I think if you post that over here you'll get plenty of extremely loud disagreement.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Dec 9, 2015
    Messages
    150
    Reaction score
    78
    Good suggestion. Better than what we have.
    thx
    Very similar to the old power mechanic.
    i think it's more like in between the previous and the actual system (in point of Dimensions)
    I will say though that it has a favored shape and I am adamantly against giving a specific shape an advantage over another.
    it would definitly encourage the centralized placement of the Reactor.
    But No it would not gieve one shape an advantage over anothe. i even suggested ways to give close to unlimmited freedom of shape.
    You should post it in the suggestions sub.
    I always get the impression that anything i post there is commented 2-3 times and then vanishes in the void of the suggestions sub...
    like this one a more realistic way to dock Turrets i think its quiet good but ther is not really much feedback...
    if you like the idea you may change it anyway you like and suggest it :) i think it will vanish after 3 weeks if i do it ^^
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    No they aren't. It's true that none of the three points are independent from the other, but none are fully dependent on one of the others either.
    By "size" I basically mean overall dimensions (of reactor plus stabilisers), and I can alter power with out altering overall dimensions (for example), therefore size and power aren't the same thing.
    Sure, you can place down 1 reactor block and then a stabilizer 10k meters away or, 5k reactors and 5k stabilizers 1 meter away. If that's what you mean by not being fully dependant, then yes, technically you are correct but that also means it's hilariously unbalanced and still promotes a specific shape over all others.

    If you want to be competitive in PvP you have to consider ship shape even if you ignore power.
    Power 1.0 also affected ship shape: small dimensions on one axis (relative to the other two) meant an inefficient design (more total ship mass for the same power, assuming a continuous hull), and small dimensions on two axes meant extremely inefficient design.
    I don't think shape should be independent of performance. I think it should definitely be related somehow, and I think the way the power system currently achieves that is pretty good.
    Of course you have to consider ship shape in pvp but I don't want to have an arbitrary limitation imposed on my ship because of it's shape.

    I disagree, and I think if you post that over here you'll get plenty of extremely loud disagreement.
    The thread you linked was posted as a way to balance an unbalanced system while working within that system. The spacing of spaghetti goes hand in hand with dimensional power being unbalanced. It's unbalanced because mass for mass they have a crazy level of capability. Compacting a spaghetti ship down to the size of a normal ship wont reduce it's power levels or dps. It will reduce it's defensive capabilites though and sufficiently render spaghetti handicapped. It's just another way of killing them off and It was stated multiple times in that thread that basing it off of mass or block count would be ideal.

    I always get the impression that anything i post there is commented 2-3 times and then vanishes in the void of the suggestions sub...
    like this one a more realistic way to dock Turrets i think its quiet good but ther is not really much feedback...
    if you like the idea you may change it anyway you like and suggest it :) i think it will vanish after 3 weeks if i do it ^^
    I feel your pain brother. Many of mine get the same treatment :p
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Sure, you can place down 1 reactor block and then a stabilizer 10k meters away or, 5k reactors and 5k stabilizers 1 meter away. If that's what you mean by not being fully dependant, then yes, technically you are correct but that also means it's hilariously unbalanced and still promotes a specific shape over all others.
    Let's keep in mind the current sub-point being discussed: that power 2.0 creates a design triangle between size, mass, and power. Improving one means compromising on one or both of the others.
    For the same reactor I can place fewer stabilisers at a larger distance, or more stabilisers at a closer distance. My power stays constant, but my size changes.
    From that we can say, irrefutably and without any possibility of contradiction, that size and power are not the same point on the "triangle".

    Of course you have to consider ship shape in pvp but I don't want to have an arbitrary limitation imposed on my ship because of it's shape.
    You don't have one. You can trade size(shape) for both/either power and/or mass.

    The thread you linked was posted as a way to balance an unbalanced system while working within that system. The spacing of spaghetti goes hand in hand with dimensional power being unbalanced. It's unbalanced because mass for mass they have a crazy level of capability. Compacting a spaghetti ship down to the size of a normal ship wont reduce it's power levels or dps. It will reduce it's defensive capabilites though and sufficiently render spaghetti handicapped. It's just another way of killing them off and It was stated multiple times in that thread that basing it off of mass or block count would be ideal.
    Spaghetti ships are meta primarily because they're hard to hit/damage.
    Spaghetti is meta for both power 1.0 and power 2.0.
    I suggest you post your theories on spaghetti in the other thread, I'm really not interested in discussing it here.
     
    Joined
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages
    1
    Reaction score
    0
    Why not try something simple and rather than making reactors kinda weird and woobly, make them actually a system that requires thought to build? As it stands, both systems don't really lend themselves to anything other than rather... arbitrary systems. Be it through docked power transfer systems, noodle ships or borg cubes.

    What if, if you will entertain the thought for just a moment here mind, reactors need more than one block to build. The interaction between blocks could be how you make better stronger power systems and it would lend to quite a few different designs. I mean just off the top of my head you could have a system that uses 5 blocks and works simply.

    Reactor chamber, Power extractor, Plasma injector, Plasma heater and Stabilizers.

    Chambers contain the reaction itself, you can get away with just these and nothing else, though they won't be as effective, best when in a line, loop, cross or the like. Works less effectively as a solid box, and does not gain much from being absolutely massive.

    Power extractors drain additional power from the chamber they are connected to at the cost of making them intermittent, too many extractors and the reactor starts functioning quite terribly, although it will occasionally spike a lot of power. This can actually be useful if you don't mind the spike/wait/spike/wait style. Extractors can only be connected to chambers directly, connecting them to each other or other reactor devices does not work unless a chamber is there.

    Plasma injectors. This takes plasma heated from the heaters and pumps it down a line, drastically increasing the power extraction potential but also making it more unstable, by unstable I mean it could potentially explode. The trade off here is while you can start pumping a huge volume of ultra hot plasma into a tiny chamber, it makes it more and more explosive the higher this ratio goes. You could in theory have a reactor that is stupidly size efficient and high output, but massively explosive if it gets poked funny, emulating an antimatter style reactor. Injectors can only function on the end of a line and only pump in one direction. In addition, they actually keep the reactor from cutting out if you have extractors. Simple enough.

    Heaters connect to plasma injectors, drastically increasing the explosion damage of the reactor for the payoff of making far higher output. These can connect to each other but must be linked to a reactor through the injector. Drastic increase in power, for a drastic increase in risk. Note, these cannot be blobbed up, they need separate groups for each injector. When coupled with injectors, they individually counteract extractors so the reactor itself does not stop functioning on a one to one basis. This does not actually make the reactor more stable, it just makes it run without stopping. Not needed, but nice to have.

    Stabilizers reduce the explosive damage and further increase the reactors output, but must be connected to a chamber directly, meaning you cannot have a perfectly safe mega output reactor without very careful design AND compromise in some power. Again, simple to use.

    Note all parts can connect to multiple chambers concurrently, so if you have say two parallel reactor chambers, extractors in the middle will work on them both, same with any other part save for injectors and heaters. This means you can get a very nuclear reactor pile and control rod style setup in some cases and it'd work perfectly while also looking pretty neat due to the block differences, depending on texture/animations.


    Now with this setup, you can have several types of reactor.
    The fission reactor, a big slab of stable long lasting power generation. It may not be high output, but it won't go anywhere any time soon even with holes in it. It ain't exploding any time soon, as despite what Bollywood wants you think, they ain't nuclear bombs waiting for a light breeze to make them explode.
    The Fusion reactor, somewhat unstable and potentially quite massive. It's not entirely safe, but it's also not all that dangerous, as the worst it may do is damage nearby systems if it goes up. Makes a lot of power, but isn't anywhere near as punchy for the output as this next one.
    The antimatter reactor. Small, compact and packed full of power, this thing will run any system on a similarly small ship, or handily power a larger one in several small groups. But.. will probably tear the ship apart if they go off. It's so unstable that while sure it makes an absolute truckton of power, if it's not well armored or shielded... or both, this WILL go up with a light tap.

    In addition, it makes such a variable potential for shapes, you could keep the long and thin, or borg cubes as both would in fact be a viable option. Even barbell designs would be an option, as would any other ship setup. But all things point to something important, the bigger the reactor the more power it pumps out, even in the smallest of cases at maximum instability, it's still not going to power a dreadnought if it's no bigger than a small drone. However it does mean that small drone could have a reactor worth something in the end, letting it carry something which could damage a massive capital. Aka, diversifies without tying to impose arbitrary dimensional or block limits.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    Let's keep in mind the current sub-point being discussed: that power 2.0 creates a design triangle between size, mass, and power. Improving one means compromising on one or both of the others.
    For the same reactor I can place fewer stabilisers at a larger distance, or more stabilisers at a closer distance. My power stays constant, but my size changes.
    From that we can say, irrefutably and without any possibility of contradiction, that size and power are not the same point on the "triangle".
    Look dude, I understand what you're saying, but I'm not going to go around in circles with you on this anymore. I disagree that it's balanced.

    You don't have one. You can trade size(shape) for both/either power and/or mass.
    I don't know how you build your PVP ships, but I build mine with efficiency in mind. So, if I want in efficient PVP ship then I am forced to build a certain shape.

    Spaghetti ships are meta primarily because they're hard to hit/damage.
    Spaghetti is meta for both power 1.0 and power 2.0.
    I suggest you post your theories on spaghetti in the other thread, I'm really not interested in discussing it here.
    Hahaha, ok. I have no desire to hijack that thread to settle a debate here. Not only would it be childish to do so, but it also would not contribute anything to the discussion there.

    GnomeKing you "disagreed" to the wrong user. You might want to change that.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    I don't know how you build your PVP ships, but I build mine with efficiency in mind. So, if I want in efficient PVP ship then I am forced to build a certain shape.
    By efficiency you mean minimising block count/mass?
    If you want an efficient ship in power 1.0 then you'd also be "forced" to build a certain shape.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    295
    Reaction score
    112
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    By efficiency you mean minimising block count/mass?
    If you want an efficient ship in power 1.0 then you'd also be "forced" to build a certain shape.
    Yeah, I know. It was unbalanced then too because of dimensional rules.
     
    Joined
    Mar 15, 2014
    Messages
    238
    Reaction score
    68
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    The OP makers an interesting arguement, but part is based on the assumption that dimensional reactors were bad. They weren't. They were an interesting and novel gameplay mechanism that just needed to be balanced, rather than scrapped and overhauled completely.

    Why? Again, no game had ever done this. It is innovative. Sure it lead to some "bad" plus-sign shaped ships... Until we figured out it was just as good and a whole lot easier to lay down 1x1x# checkerboard tracks instead. Plus... Lets face it, everyone laughed at noobcubes of xyz power and thrusters. No one took them seriously, and many servers banned them. No big deal.

    Schine them changed thrusters back to pure block count. Why not reactors? Well... In truth, they could have. We could have nothing but pure block count determine every system, regardless of touching or dimensions. That is a whole lot less tedious and troublesome for players to figure out and then they can get back to much more interesting and varied aesthetics of design, instead of fiddling with systems.

    ...but... If we're going do do that, pure block count, then why make players even mess with laying down any system blocks at all?! Why annoy the puss out of players with what essentially amounts to grinding, or an annoying tap-fest mobile game?

    What kind of masochistic game dev would do that? No... Might as well get rid of all system blocks entirely. No guns either. Just lay down your pretty armor hull blocks which determines your mass. Open a dialogue window with sliders to determine what percent out of 100% total to distribute to power regen, power cap, shield cap, shield regen, thrust, top speed. Open up a weapon dialogue box with more % sliders and you can choose your type (cannon, beam, missile, pulse), the effect (ion, pull, pierce, etc) and % out of 100 to devote to range, rate, cooldown, burst, accuracy, speed, etc...

    I hope some of you are getting some good deja vu, yeah? ;P

    Why punish players by making things more complex and time-consuming under the false premise of gameplay or complexity or depth? Just keep it simple and let us get back to what everyone unfailingly agrees on that's a love doing - design something shiny, mine other shinies to build it, and blow it up in dogfights with a peristent, dynamic RTS galaxy in the background!

    Schine have failed, but it's never too late to steer straight.