Recognized Fuel mechanic proposal

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,062
    Reaction score
    1,841
    • Councillor 2 Gold
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    This is something I wrote to address the problem concerning docked reactors. I based it on previous community polls, which suggested that people were pretty inclined to the idea of fuel replacing docked reactors. So from that I wrote up an actual way to make that work. I'm sharing it to see what the community thinks, so don't hesitate to post comments/questions in response to this thread! You can skip the "introduction" and "current solutions" parts if you're already well acquainted with the problems caused by docked reactors. If you have any suggestions about the values I intentionally left blank (x), then please leave them below as well!

    Fuel mechanic proposal

    The problem:

    This solution is intended to solve the current problems outlined below (order is irrelevant):
    1. Docked reactors cause massive server issues due to the collision lag they produce when they undock mid-combat after their docked gets shot. This leads to combat being an unenjoyable lag-fest.
    2. Docked reactors provide an unfair advantage to veteran players against new players, due to their really unintuitive nature (ok, that's sort of debatable)
    3. When it comes to player piloted ships (excluding fleets and AI here), there isn't enough of a difference between large and small ships to justify the exclusive usage of small ships. As a rule of thumb larger ships just provide more advantages despite the higher efficiency of smaller ships. Nerfing the efficiency of large ships further would reverse the situation (small ships -> big ships), which is also undesirable. Both ship types need to have their use and roles in the starmade universe, or at least concrete advantages/disadvantages.
    It is worth noting that the game is currently balanced with the use of docked reactors. Even if it's not intentional, combat is balanced between ships using docked reactors. FYI it's good balance, we don't want that changed (for the most part). I'd go as far as saying that not using docked reactors for ships over the power cap, and still have them perform at an acceptable level, is unfeasible. With that said, apart from problem #3, docked reactors fit well into the current balance of the game.

    In addition, docked reactors serve as a kind of weak point for larger ships, and that's a mechanic that I think is worth keeping.

    Current (flawed) solutions:

    With that in mind, here's a list of current solutions to solve the problems. They all fail to solve the problems up there without destroying the current balance. That's just off the top of my head, there's probably more (order is irrelevant):
    1. Introducing fuel and having it give a bonus to the current power system: I assume that this would come as a % increase in power, or some similar bonus. The problem is that it couldn't be balanced properly with the scaling ship sizes. It'd have to be ridiculously large to compensate for the current power increase gained by docked reactors, and that in turn would make small ships completely OP. To avoid that the % would need to be on a curve, but that would be absolute cancer to balance properly.
    2. Removing the power cap: An argument can be made for this solution: "People use docked reactors to circumvent the power cap. Essentially, it's like ships equipped with docked reactors don't have a power cap. In addition, the balance situation has been reversed since the introduction of the power cap: Larger weapons now have less efficient damage and power consumption, which is the opposite of the old waffle weapons ppl used (which lead to the power cap being added). The efficiency curve on large ships is currently dictated by weapons, thrust and defence, not power. So the question is: Is there still a point to having a power cap?" (I came up with that argument btw). The problem is that docked reactors are still slightly less efficient than outright power, since they require power supply beams and other stuff to work. In addition, it wouldn't solve the issue with large and small ships essentially competing for the same roles, with one having a massive advantage over the other with no downside other than a slight efficiency drop.
    Having considered the two solutions and their problems, I came up with a solution that effectively replaces the functionality of docked reactors without compromising it, and solves the problem #3 at the same time.

    THE SOLUTION:

    This is a multi-faceted solution, but you'll see it's actually quite simple. I split it in parts to make reading/understanding simpler. I also didn't get into specific numbers because that can easily be determined separately. Each part has a small description, an explanation of the mechanics, and the reasoning behind them. READ THE WHOLE THING OR ELSE YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND EACH POINT!!!

    Fuel reactors:

    Fuel reactors would be a new block. In essence, it's a copy of the current reactor blocks with a few differences/conditions. Please note that it would be AN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT POWER SYSTEM, NOT A REPLACEMENT! I can't stress this enough! Ships would have the ability to have both normal reactors and fuel reactors at the same time. Here's the specifics:
    • It would only provide power when fuel is being fed to it. Fuel consumption would scale linearly with power production.
    • It would use the same formula as the current system. By that I mean that it would use the same dimension system as the normal power reactor system (so lines/crosses). It would also produce the same amount of power for the same amount of blocks as the current system.
    • Power production would be capped at 1 million (that value should be adjustable by config), PER FUEL REACTOR GROUP. By that I mean that each fuel reactor group (aka fuel reactor blocks touching each other) could reach a maximum amount of 1 mil e/sec (just an example value). This also means that you can have more than one fuel reactor group to achieve as much power as you want (assuming you have the space and fuel ofc).
    • A flat fuel consumption penalty of X percentage would be given for each additional fuel reactor. Basically the same as amount of weapon outputs and their energy consumption penalty increase. This penalty should be adjustable by config.
    In essence, this mechanic would mean that large ships could achieve higher power production in the exact same way as with docked reactors, while also having a running cost. The running cost, in the form of fuel, balances out the increase in power production efficiency. In addition, it also means that mid-sized ships that don't necessarily have the space to have 1 million groups would need to be built intelligently to maximize fuel reactor gains with the smallest amount of groups as possible (to not have ridiculously inefficient fuel consumption due to a high amount of groups, and therefore penalty). It adds a degree of design to construction, which is something people generally love. Finally, it gives an advantage to smaller ships since they don't have a running cost since they wouldn't go over the default reactor's 2mil e/sec cap. That way new players or factions aren't burdened by fuel production and cost. It adds some more progression to the game. Of course I fully expect people to use normal reactors supplemented by fuel reactors for combat situations, which would be the right thing to do (same thing as with docked reactors :p ).

    Fuel pump/tank:

    Essentially an extension of the cargo system. This is used to store fuel:
    • It'd work the same way except as the cargo system except that it would only be used to store fuel. So you have the "fuel pump" block and the "tank block", which are the same as the storage block and the cargo area (I think that's what it's called?).
    • The fuel stored would be automatically pulled from the fuel pump(s) to fuel the reactors. No need to link all the fuel reactors to the fuel pump block.
    • The pump block could be turned on/off with logic, turning it off would cut off the fuel supplied to the fuel reactors (so you can turn your fuel reactors on/off with an inner ship remote).
    • Filled fuel tanks (aka fuel tank slabs) would explode when shot. Could be turned on/off via server config.
    I don't really have to explain the reasoning behind this part, it's pretty self-explanatory. The only thing I'd like to talk about is the explosive fuel tanks: This serves as a disadvantage to using fuel, as it adds some a weak spot (exactly like docked reactors do now, with the risk of them being shot off an all). In addition, it adds another layer to design, being the protection and positioning of fuel tanks (which sounds incredibly fun).

    Fuel refinery:

    A factory-type block used to refine [insert raw fuel resource name here] into spaceship grade fuel.
    • Could only be place and used on stations.
    • Could be made faster through the use of factory enhancers
    • Would consume X amount of power per fuel unit produced. This number could be adjusted via config
    • (this depends on the faction/ressource update) Could not be placed on homebases.
    The three first points are pretty self-explanatory. As for the fourth, it will depend on how resource gathering will work. If raw fuel/resources have to be extracted with stations or other installations, then refineries could be placed on homebases. If it'll only come from asteroids, which don't require anything special to mine, then refineries could NOT be placed on homebases. The reasoning behind this is that it should be possible to disturb the infrastructure used by factions to maintain their capital/large ship fleet. If a faction is too small to attack a more powerful faction head-on, then it could be possible to be covert and locate/destroy enemy refineries or raw fuel production facilities to make their larger ships unusable. This balances out the power that large ships confer to larger factions by giving alternatives to dealing with them (it basically solves most of problem #3).

    I basically don't want fuel production to fall under home base invincibility like everything else, cause it sucks, and promotes homebase sitting and doing nothing, which is killing the faction/multiplayer scene.

    Power supply beams: Those would be changed to make it impossible to make/use working docked reactors (cause what would be the point of fuel if you can get the same thing from an infinite energy source). I think that's a given. This could be done by making it so that they can't be activated with logic, or some other super secret magical coding way that only Schema knows of.

    Conclusion
    In conclusion, the fuel system would solve the problems caused by docked reactors without upsetting the game's balance or requiring people to completely modify their ships (docked reactor emplacements could be replaced with fuel reactors). It also solves the issue of small and large ships not having defined advantages and disadvantages, along with creating additional layers of design (fun) and sparking faction conflict/interaction (also fun). That is all, thanks for reading.

    Leave a like and/or comment if you support, comment if you don't (with explanation)!

    By Keptick​

    PS: People could still just spam normal reactor blocks if they wanted to achieve high power levels without using fuel. Of course, that's if they don't mind the trade-off of having no fuel cost for severely lowered power efficiency. It's more or less the same thing with docked reactors currently (except that the cost is the effort required to build them and get the buggy wireless logic working).
     
    Last edited:

    Fellow Starmadian

    Oh cool so thats what this is
    Joined
    Jun 7, 2014
    Messages
    227
    Reaction score
    87
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Wired for Logic
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    first!

    edit: I pretty much agree with this whole idea, really don't have anything to add.. good work!
    *thumbs up*
     
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2016
    Messages
    2
    Reaction score
    1
    This is a terrible idea. Collision lag can be solved by 2 things.

    1. Stop using java.

    2. Code collisions correctly. having collision damage would solve this issue.
     
    Joined
    Dec 3, 2013
    Messages
    552
    Reaction score
    182
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    This is the best suggestion for a fuel system I have read on the forums. It doesn't interfere with current ship designs that are power reactor based, It allows people to ignore it if they don't feel like dealing with it AND it allows for some crazy and creative ship design around it. I would like to propose one addition though. The ability to spend credits at shops to "Refill" your fuel. Could allow a player to refill their tanks when far away from their infrastructure.
     
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    8
    Reaction score
    19
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    Noooooooooo! We ! Don't! Want! Another! K! S! P! Please!.........but good thought.
    m8 the fuel won't replace the reactor systems, ships will work fine without it, the proposed system intends to replace docked reactors and their associated problems. it's pretty shit that everyone shuts their eyes at the mention of fuel.

    i was once one of those people, didn't like the concept of finite energy and i still don't. without replacing our current system however, this is a great supplement. i could really see a use for the concept when building smaller ships with power-hungry roles, à la EVE Online interceptors, or any ship that uses a cloaker. very good suggestion
     

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,062
    Reaction score
    1,841
    • Councillor 2 Gold
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    first!
    edit: I pretty much agree with this whole idea, really don't have anything to add.. good work!
    *thumbs up*
    Thanks!
    Noooooooooo! We ! Don't! Want! Another! K! S! P! Please!.........but good thought.
    herm... ok
    This is a terrible idea. Collision lag can be solved by 2 things.
    1. Stop using java.
    2. Code collisions correctly. having collision damage would solve this issue.
    While that might be easy to say it's not very feasible to change coding languages at this point in development. There are MANY threads on the subject, so I won't start debating that here. As for collisions, no matter how optimized collisions are, when you have something colliding and bouncing around inside a ship it causes problems. As for collision damage, that'd be even more lagy than what we have now (just look at space engineers for reference).
    This is the best suggestion for a fuel system I have read on the forums. It doesn't interfere with current ship designs that are power reactor based, It allows people to ignore it if they don't feel like dealing with it AND it allows for some crazy and creative ship design around it. I would like to propose one addition though. The ability to spend credits at shops to "Refill" your fuel. Could allow a player to refill their tanks when far away from their infrastructure.
    Glad you like it!

    The ability to refill fuel at shops... I'll have to think about that one, there's a few problems I could think of that would stem from it, but I see your point. My main concern is the fact that people could bypass the entire fuel production infrastructure by buying it in shops, which would ruin part of the goal of the suggestion (encouraging combat by having vulnerable targets, and getting people to expand).

    Perhaps if it was prohibitively expensive and only small quantities could be bought at the same time it could work. However, since you'd have a normal power system as well on the ship (normal reactors up to 2mil e/sec, otherwise there's no point to using fuel if you haven't reached the cap with normal reactors) you could probably limp back to your base on the emergency power. Ofc it'd be a risk to take. A HUD marker to indicate how much fuel is left in the storage is probably something I should add to the suggestion, I'll ask the devs if it would be possible.
     
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages
    298
    Reaction score
    81
    Just build a generator, hook it to wifi, cover it in warheads and you have your system. Problem solved.
     

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Just build a generator, hook it to wifi, cover it in warheads and you have your system. Problem solved.
    *Take hit to generator*
    *generator is wrapped in warheads*
    *Generator is vaporised when undocked*

    Not sure if it would be quite as smooth lol, and totally couldn't be enforced, but that IS how you reduce null pointers on big torpedo hits anyway (thereby rendoring them pointless hue hue hue), vaporize as much of the colliding entity as possible all at once.

    I love this idea, and I like the idea of not being able to put them on homebases, with the exception that defending bases while offline currently relies on an AI that's honestly just terrible at the job. For the time being anyway, maybe that part can wait until AFTER AI is improved to be less susceptible to cheese tactics.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: NeonSturm
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages
    298
    Reaction score
    81
    *Take hit to generator*
    *generator is wrapped in warheads*
    *Generator is vaporised when undocked*
    Well he wants exploding fuel tanks, my idea would definitely simulate that right now no coding required. :D
     

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    My only issue with this would be that currently generators can take hits for days without being undocked or becoming inefficient, and due to their size (a 2mil e/s gen is gonna be like 200x9x9 or equivalent size) they DO take hits for days, would be a damn shame if they were just that easy to completely destroy.
     

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,062
    Reaction score
    1,841
    • Councillor 2 Gold
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    My only issue with this would be that currently generators can take hits for days without being undocked or becoming inefficient, and due to their size (a 2mil e/s gen is gonna be like 200x9x9 or equivalent size) they DO take hits for days, would be a damn shame if they were just that easy to completely destroy.
    The fuel reactor blocks wouldn't explode when shot, only the fuel storage. Having the reactors explode as well would be a bit too much since, as you said, they can take up/cover large areas (unlike storage, which is rather concentrated into clumps).

    Edit: And it's really just optional. As I said in the suggestion it could be turned off via config.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages
    298
    Reaction score
    81
    My only issue with this would be that currently generators can take hits for days without being undocked or becoming inefficient, and due to their size (a 2mil e/s gen is gonna be like 200x9x9 or equivalent size) they DO take hits for days, would be a damn shame if they were just that easy to completely destroy.
    Not had that problem, if anything docked generators are the first thing to go as the collision sucks so much that missiles will fly through my ships hull and smash up everything eternally,usually the generators.

    This it seems is because my ship will appear fine on my screen, yet another player with a less decent computer will come along while I am fighting pirates or another player, and their computer doesn't render my ship entirely for them, and the game decides that is what they will use to determine where my hull is, not my clients info. So where that player sees holes, the game thinks it's okay to fly missiles through as if it doesn't exist.

    But that aside, yeah I have seen plenty of generators trashed and undocked, even when the game is working, they're usually the first thing to go.
     

    alterintel

    moderator
    Joined
    May 24, 2015
    Messages
    869
    Reaction score
    596
    • Likeable
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    I LIKE EVERYTHING except for one thing...
    It would use the same formula as the current system... (so lines/crosses)
    This doesn't help me. I recognize that this effort is focused on a solution for docked reactors... but my biggest beef isn't with the power cap (which I will concede is the biggest concern for builders of large ship PVP'ers) My biggest beef, however, is the lines and crosses. Now I already know what you're going to say because I've argued this point until I'm blue in the face. I know that "most people" (at least the vocal ones) like the lines and crosses, but I don't. I stand by my opinion that lines and crosses are a bitch, and are absolutely ZERO fun when I inevitably have to tweek my ship a billion times to get it balanced right. I would hope that when fuel reactors finally come out it would mean the end of lines and crosses.

    So I'm 95% in agreement with you which is why you got a like on this post from me. But if you want my full support (for whatever that's worth... LOL) then get rid of the the lines and crosses.

    Thanks for listening :)
     
    Joined
    Aug 1, 2015
    Messages
    472
    Reaction score
    84
    • Purchased!
    I LIKE EVERYTHING except for one thing...


    This doesn't help me. I recognize that this effort is focused on a solution for docked reactors... but my biggest beef isn't with the power cap (which I will concede is the biggest concern for builders of large ship PVP'ers) My biggest beef, however, is the lines and crosses. Now I already know what you're going to say because I've argued this point until I'm blue in the face. I know that "most people" (at least the vocal ones) like the lines and crosses, but I don't. I stand by my opinion that lines and crosses are a bitch, and are absolutely ZERO fun when I inevitably have to tweek my ship a billion times to get it balanced right. I would hope that when fuel reactors finally come out it would mean the end of lines and crosses.

    So I'm 95% in agreement with you which is why you got a like on this post from me. But if you want my full support (for whatever that's worth... LOL) then get rid of the the lines and crosses.

    Thanks for listening :)
    I think the idea has merit,and the ability to fill er up at a station could add to game play.It wouldn't be as easy as throw the attendant a $20.00 and fill it up,it would have to be balanced by relation or faction points(they have to be good for something).Also the "engines" should be just that , each block should be a "cylinder"and when placed in groupings give more output,hopefully this would allow people who are more interested in r/p or realistic builds a little more freedom as the current power layout will dictate designs too much. m2c
     
    Joined
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages
    2,932
    Reaction score
    460
    • Hardware Store
    A-fuel: minable resource, can be refined into B-fuel. Cannot be used in fuel-reactors
    B-fuel: used in fuel-reactors
    The only change to his, that I would propose, is to allow the option of there not being a need for A-fuel.
    Refineries would then[at the cost of energy] produce B-fuel from nothing.

    Another option would be that B-fuel turns back into A-fuel when used in fuel-reactors.
    In essence this would make fuel fully recycle-able, if you don't lose it. So even if your ship ends up stuck without B-fuel, it is still valueable as it likely contains large amounts of A-fuel. This would even give an incentive to raid other fueled ships, that ran out of B-fuel, simply to get their A-fuel.
    IRL the latter case A-fuel would likely be water, and B-fuel a 2:1 combination of hydrogen and oxygen(not a mix, as that would be highly explosive, but assuming in the game we always ensure a 2:1 ratio, we can combine both into a single unit/item) [which is how I got that idea].
     

    Keptick

    Building masochist
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    4,062
    Reaction score
    1,841
    • Councillor 2 Gold
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    In relation to what @megacrafter said in the post above, after some discussion we agreed that the A-B fuel would be very hard to obtain, essentially an end-game item. It would be a seperate type of fuel, basically a high-end alternative to normal fuel (since it can be refined ad-infinitum).

    Would make for a good trading item as well :D
     
    Last edited:

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    I think a good way to obtain fuel would be from gas giants, as well as a block on certain asteroid types. I like the idea of being able to get fuel out of water, so maybe that would mean we wouldn't even need to change the current asteroid generation, as there's already asteroids with ice on them.

    Also, I basically made this exact same suggestion a while ago. It's a bit dated as it's from long before cargo, though. :p
    Fuel, as a replacement for docked reactors.
     

    therimmer96

    The Cake Network Staff Senior button unpusher
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    3,603
    Reaction score
    1,053
    This is a terrible idea. Collision lag can be solved by 2 things.

    1. Stop using java.

    2. Code collisions correctly. having collision damage would solve this issue.
    GTAV has collision damage and isn't java based, drop a dozen cars, shit lags.

    The issue is complex collisions, not the engine or language
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Keptick