1. Hey Guest! We're currently translating StarMade. Anyone can translate, if you can, feel free to!
      Dismiss Notice
    2. Hey Guest! We're currently looking for new forum administrators. If this interests you, head over to this thread.
      Dismiss Notice
    3. Interested in helping moderate SMD? We're currently looking for moderators, check out this thread.
      Dismiss Notice

    Docked Entity Stabilizers?

    Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Edymnion, Oct 10, 2017.

    1. Edymnion

      Joined:
      Mar 18, 2015
      Messages:
      2,268
      Just a minor one here.

      I'd like to see stabilizers in docked entities count for the reactor of the ship they are docked to.

      Mainly because I'm digging the idea of rotating rings on ships that happen to be the stabilizers.
       
      • Agree Agree x 8
      • Creative Creative x 4
      • Disagree Disagree x 1
    2. Valiant70

      Valiant70 Cyborg Ninjaneer

      Joined:
      Oct 27, 2013
      Messages:
      1,721
      LOVE IT!
       
    3. Crashmaster

      Crashmaster I got N64 problems but a bitch ain't one

      Joined:
      Oct 18, 2013
      Messages:
      316
      This seems rather poorly thought out. It would completely remove the point of stabilizers as docked entities are not (yet?) counted towards ship dimensions.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    4. Valck

      Joined:
      Jun 27, 2013
      Messages:
      826
      Since stabilizers currently don't need a physical connection to their reactor, you could make docked, hollow rotating rings around static rings of stabilizers that are part of the ship itself.

      EDIT:
      Also, this.
       
      • Creative Creative x 1
    5. Valiant70

      Valiant70 Cyborg Ninjaneer

      Joined:
      Oct 27, 2013
      Messages:
      1,721
      Non sequitur. As far as I'm aware the box dimensions of the parent entity no longer matter anyway except for making the ship a larger or smaller target. The docked parts would be a target, meaning the only cost is that the docked parts are not entirely covered by the mothership's shields. If anything, using docked stabilizers would be a disadvantage in that respect.

      I can still see docked stabilizers being useful. For example, you could have a second set that fold out from the hull as a backup if the primary set is damaged or destroyed.

      Further note on the topic of box dimensions: If box dims are still used, the only thing they might affect is turning speed. If that's the case this mechanic should either be removed to allow more creativity with less cost, or the box dim calculation should include docked entities for balance. Considering that the longest dimension is now somewhat proportional to the ship's power output, the box dimension calculation isn't a bad mechanic for balance. However, it does put a damper on decorative antennas and stuff, making it undesirable.
       
    6. kulbolen

      Joined:
      Jan 4, 2015
      Messages:
      475
      this isnt a non sequiter; its related to the topic and if correct would matter a lot to the proposal. as it stands, its at least partially correct. box dims do still matter, and docked entitys dims are not checked on the main ship right now.
       
    7. Crashmaster

      Crashmaster I got N64 problems but a bitch ain't one

      Joined:
      Oct 18, 2013
      Messages:
      316
      In addition to this idea's negation of the entire current point of stabilizers;

      If we take the commonly thrown around theory-crafting stabilizer pod distance from ship as 1km (just for klicks) and mount that as a rotating docked component where standard constant rotator period is approximately 3.25 seconds;

      C=2(3.14)R=2(3,14)1000=6280m
      V=d/t=6280/3.25=1932m/s

      Good luck hitting that. I would worry more about getting hit by it. Having to heavily armor a single docking point with a remote core is no real penalty IMO. I think that this suggestion would encourage far worse things that power transfer beams ever did.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    8. Arcaner

      Arcaner Prince of Wolves

      Joined:
      Oct 8, 2014
      Messages:
      34
      I wouldn't worry about that rotating one though. If it's small enough to not get hit, it won't hit you and more importantly, it's small enough to be useless. If it's big, it shouldn't be difficult to hit it or, to ignore the damned thing and take out the reactor blocks back on his main ship.

      There are many possible hacks, but the pros outweigh(?) them.

      Imagine having two reactors at the two ends of your ship. Now, if we could have docked stabilizers, we can create a simple rail system such that the stabilizers move to the back if the front reactor is active, and move to the front if the back reactors are active.

      I'm sure we all want stuff like this possible.
       
      #8 Arcaner, Oct 11, 2017
      Last edited: Oct 11, 2017
    9. Calhoun

      Calhoun Part-time God

      Joined:
      May 26, 2015
      Messages:
      779
      [​IMG]
       
      • Funny Funny x 3
    10. Dire Venom

      Joined:
      Feb 27, 2014
      Messages:
      600
      Having required distances for stabilizors is ridiculous. Limiting, and does not improve gameplay or building depth or ease of use.
      Modular ships deserve equal rights just like any old ship. A ships dimensions should not be determined by stabilizors, there are far better ways to balance reactors which do not limit design.
       
      • Disagree Disagree x 1
    11. Valiant70

      Valiant70 Cyborg Ninjaneer

      Joined:
      Oct 27, 2013
      Messages:
      1,721
      This is why boxdim-related turning rates might be a feasible anti-exploit mechanic despite the undesirable tendency to make people cut their decorative antennas off to turn faster.
      --- Updated post (merge), Oct 11, 2017, Original Post Date: Oct 11, 2017 ---
      [​IMG]

      It's better than the reactors we had before!! I've been designing ships around those daggum things for years, and quite frankly, they're probably the main reason I got tired of building ships.
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    12. Dire Venom

      Joined:
      Feb 27, 2014
      Messages:
      600
      Just because it's better does not mean that it is ideal. What do you find minimum distance placement adds to the game beyound more calculations? All it does is make you put your stabilizors further out and your shields/thrusters around the core.
      It just seems entirely pointless and encourages disconected stabz/
       
    13. Valiant70

      Valiant70 Cyborg Ninjaneer

      Joined:
      Oct 27, 2013
      Messages:
      1,721
      Do you have a better idea?
       
    14. Edymnion

      Joined:
      Mar 18, 2015
      Messages:
      2,268
      Can, yes. But as I understand it, having a hollow ring rotating around between layers of a static ship is hell on the collision checks. Don't wanna make a lag monster simply to look cool.
      Nothing is ever ideal.

      "Just because it is better" should be all the justification we need for doing it. Because it is better and the alternative is worse. Being a billionaire might be ideal, but I'll still take $100 million if its offered instead of staying poor.

      That said, if we have the distance mechanic in place, I wouldn't think it would be TOO hard to do some napkin math and figure out how far from the reactor the stabilizers are and still have them work normally.
       
    15. madman Captain

      madman Captain Self-appointet Overlord of the Scaffold

      Joined:
      Jan 11, 2015
      Messages:
      189
      I would see just another version of docked reactors/thrust/armor so... meh please no.
      Just imagine how people will try to build fast rotating stabiliser clusters around their ships wich make it fucking impossible to hit that stuff.
       
      • Like Like x 1
    16. JinM

      Joined:
      Jun 11, 2016
      Messages:
      553
      Hey Edy the thing where this idea fails, even if I like it rp wise, is, that you need to calculate the distance in real time. As you said, they move. So if they move, the reactor distance needs to be checked everytime...I think thats not very efficient.

      The other problem is, that stabilizers are for enforcing a certain ship size, and having empty space. Docking them could be used to bypass this size enforcement.
       
    Loading...