Recognized Fuel mechanic proposal

[wanzer]

So the whole planet garbage disposal idea? Sure. I like that. It shouldn't produce energy though, it should(ratios) use 5 energy to turn 10 dirt/stone/treestuffs/planetguts into one fuel capsule. That fuel capsule put into a fuel reactor(somehow, jto) would create 10 power. So you have a 1:2 ratio of power usage.

perfect.

 

[Shaker]

Wait, did you say you want to increase block efficency as the ship gets larger?! Then whats stopping people from just having 10x as strong titains that can move just as fast bc of 10x thrusters?

Mass, whats the point of adding more thrust when you cant get your power level that high and if you could that less power being used on weapons, so it balances out. Increasing mass on the blocks will do the opposite to what you think, in the age of fleets no one wants to be a sitting/slow duck

I know, you kicked the argument that the thrust cost would be to high, but whats to stop people from,placing more megaboosted thrusters and more light system blocks like op shields and power caps.

Once again, mass. Shield/regen would come under the mass increase as its a filler block for ships. Its all about getting the block count down so players dont have to load in as much, also to hopefully get players to add in corridors and rooms instead of a single room in the middle of the ship that you have to teleport to, to get to the core.

You also talked about the "popular scifi ships" . Have you noticed that they aren't balanced and hacked at by players? The shield core centers are tiny, whats to stop people from spamming them everywhere? Scifi is cool for Tv and video, but in an interactive game(with starmades versitality at that) those models are to easily exploitable if they were in game.

Agreed, for instance startrek enterpirse ship is a bad shape for powerlines. But it is at least something different to look at from the length based ships. Rabids idea is all about helping those that rather ship interiors than just filling the insides up with systems. As an emtpy corrider is less to load than a room full of shield caps.

 

[Malacodor]

I don't like exploding fuel tanks. This would cause chain reactions, probably with a lot of lag, which is what this suggestion actually is intended to reduce. Furthermore, I don't think this game will become any better by adding the tedium of fuel mining.

 

[Madman198237]

Well, it is an element of realism and balancing factor for the increased power that a fuel-burning system would give.

It leaves you with two fuel solutions: An external fuel storage to minimize damage when it goes off, or a heavily protected internal "bunker" arrangement to prevent damage and retain your fuel-powering capability during battle.

 

[RabidBat]

Wait, did you say you want to increase block efficency as the ship gets larger?!

No that is not what I said at all. I really am not understanding why some have trouble grasping what it is I am saying. Everyone I have spoken to directly about it says it makes sense and understands exactly what I am saying. Yet the average StarMade forum user.......
Maybe it's the use of my voice or something that makes the difference. Or maybe some just read and understand context better than others.

tl;dr version aka allow me to repeat myself once again in plain English :
With my suggestion spamming systems on to titans or any ship for that matter would actually cripple them and make them extremely expensive, impractical and time consuming for anyone to use. my idea reduces block count to increase game performance, allows more detailed ship interiors while retaining the way the game is currently balanced.


Seriously I am thinking of starting a 'StarMade English Adult Literacy Fund' that will teach StarMade players for free how to read to go along with their ability to write.

Remember, stay in drugs kids and don't do school. :p lol

oh p.s: Server side system restricting. Someone should invent it. Oh wait they already have!

 

[Lecic]

With my suggestion spamming systems on to titans or any ship for that matter would actually cripple them and make them extremely expensive, impractical and time consuming for anyone to use. my idea reduces block count to increase game performance, allows more detailed ship interiors while retaining the way the game is currently balanced.

Do people normally have more interior after a system gets buffed? I don't remember that ever happening in the history of this game.

 

[Valiant70]

Do people normally have more interior after a system gets buffed? I don't remember that ever happening in the history of this game.

I started using more interior after the HP update.

 

[Shaker]

Do people normally have more interior after a system gets buffed? I don't remember that ever happening in the history of this game.

In rabids case/idea, good on them if they just fill the insides with systems. The extra weight will slow them down.

We havent seen much of the fleet battles and how manuevering plays a part in battle as the AI is still derpy and we dont have enough players in 1 faction on the same server!

 

[aRottenKomquat]

I'm a bit late to this topic and have probably missed some things...

I think the fuel mechanic already almost exists...or would exist, if we did some balancing to the reactor/capacitor systems. What if we made reactors extremely low-output, and made capacitors very high-capacity? In a way, your current energy storage and charge becomes the fuel system. You have enough energy to maneuver and fire weapons for a time, but eventually you'll have to retreat to recharge. That would work the same way as running out of fuel, except you only need time, not resources, to recharge/refuel.

I could see some fuel-using power generators on top of that system, something that generates energy much more quickly than basic power reactors but uses expensive fuel while doing so, allowing you to recharge some of your capacity in the heat of combat if you aren't able or willing to retreat to recharge.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I've always thought reactors needed a massive nerf and power capacitors needed a massive buff, so that colors a lot of my thoughts on how game mechanics could change.

 

[Lecic]

I started using more interior after the HP update.

That's because interior itself started being a system, though, not because another system got buffed. If anything, that kind of proves my points- a system got buffed, so people added more of it.

We havent seen much of the fleet battles and how manuevering plays a part in battle

Let me tell you right now, from personal experience, that having even a slightly better maneuvering ability is a massive buff. The biggest one I can think of is a time I fought a guy who primarily used lock-ons. I could turn vertically faster than he could, and stayed just out of his lock-on cone of fire almost the whole time because of it. I had managed to fully regenerate my shields while he was at 80% structure, before I had to bail because 2 of his buddies showed up and the server was about to restart.

As for how maneuverability can be used in a fleets context, well... I'd direct you to season two of Blood and Steel, but that STILL hasn't been released. (Dalmont pls)

 

[RabidBat]

Do people normally have more interior after a system gets buffed? I don't remember that ever happening in the history of this game.

Well as they normally just buff/nerf numbers like power, damage and hit points no, most do not. This is the point to me suggesting increasing mass and increasing credit/material cost to the readjusted blocks. Adjusting material costs and mass is one thing they never seem to do.
My idea needs the entire blocks stats adjusted accordingly, as to counter idiots from spamming systems.
It would be no different to how things are now, with the exception of requiring less blocks for certain systems. Having more space on the inside and spamming it full of more blocks would be like owning a filled ship now and spamming extra blocks to the exterior. It would be stupid to do so as it would just increase your ships mass. cost, required jump drives and power requirements etc meaning you end up with a unmaneuverable expensive brick.
Which I have quite clearly stated about a billion times in plain English by now.

Not sure what it is exactly I am saying that you're having having difficulty grasping. Only things I can think of is you're just being a troll or are seriously thick as two bricks and cannot comprehend basic easy to understand concepts.

If the latter would you like me to draw you a picture or two?

 

[Lecic]

Well as they normally just buff/nerf numbers like power, damage and hit points no, most do not. This is the point to me suggesting increasing mass and increasing credit/material cost to the readjusted blocks. Adjusting material costs and mass is one thing they never seem to do.
My idea needs the entire blocks stats adjusted accordingly, as to counter idiots from spamming systems.
It would be no different to how things are now, with the exception of requiring less blocks for certain systems. Having more space on the inside and spamming it full of more blocks would be like owning a filled ship now and spamming extra blocks to the exterior. It would be stupid to do so as it would just increase your ships mass. cost, required jump drives and power requirements etc meaning you end up with a unmaneuverable expensive brick.
Which I have quite clearly stated about a billion times in plain English by now.

Not sure what it is exactly I am saying that you're having having difficulty grasping. Only things I can think of is you're just being a troll or are seriously thick as two bricks and cannot comprehend basic easy to understand concepts.

If the latter would you like me to draw you a picture or two?

Calling people who disagree with your suggestion "idiots" and claiming they're just too stupid to comprehend it is incredibly condescending and rude. If you can't comprehend that someone doesn't agree with you, then maybe you're the one who has difficulty grasping basic concepts?

Buffing every single system in the game causes many problems, particularly relating to block HP and armor ratings, which I already covered. Blocks cannot have more than 255 HP, and increasing armor ratings a large amount means small ship vs small ship/large ship will be even worse, because armor blocks would be completely unbreakable to anything not large. Nor will it "counter idiots from spamming systems." People will still pack their ships with systems. They'll just have smaller ships, still packed as tightly as possible, that can move faster and present a smaller target than the handful of people who would just make a giant ship with tons of interior and little actual systems- you know, like now?

One final note- how does your suggestion relate to fuel, exactly?

 

[Borr]

Totally love the suggestion. I always wanted some kind of fuel system implementation. In addition I would suggest ability to extract fuel/fuel ingredient from a star (I'm still waiting for that solar protection/shield :P) or from planet core (some kind of extraction drill maybe, buildable on planets only?). Also, maybe more efficient thrusters that use fuel instead of power wouldn't be a bad idea?

 

[Valiant70]

I would like a configuration option to require fuel for jump drives. More powerful fueled thrusters sound like a good idea too. We could call them afterburners.

 

[KuramaFox]

My thoughts with regards to power generation:
We could have 2 or more different types of power generation. This would include BOTH fueled power systems, and "free" ones.


1. RTG Reactor (or alternatively, Fission Reactor): (This is actually the already-existing reactors given a new name). (1 already-existing block)
-These would be the current reactor block. It would still have the same softcap, and the same (or similar) power generation mechanics it currently does. It would only be renamed. RTGs use radioactive materials that decay and produce heat. So logically, they do not need to be refueled for a very long time (at a minimum, at least a month of continuous action). In other words, they do not need the "fuel" resource, period.
-Because they work based on a heat gradient, the otherwise odd building mechanic of making long lines actually makes sense for them, since they would basically generate power based on surface area. You can even argue that the softcap makes sense due to the fact that having too many of them in one place will cause the ship around them to be warmer (and thus reduce effectiveness of how well they generate power from the reduced temperature difference).
-Naturally, the above reasoning is merely attempting to justify the current mechanics. We could also call them Fission Reactors too, since those are also able to last a long time without needing more fuel (and really, they aren't actually too much different from the concept of an RTG power system). Regardless, we can simply say that they are simply built with their necessary fuel already inside them.
-It gets a new name to avoid confusion, since "reactor" would likely be in the name of new blocks.


2. Fusion Reactor. (2 new blocks, 1 of which is optional)
-These would be a reactor type that requires fuel to operate. It does NOT have a power cap, soft or otherwise. This is because they use fuel, so the "limits" to their power are really based on how long you want them to be able to operate with the amount of fuel you brought with you.
-Additionally, the power generated by a fusion reactor is NOT counted towards the softcap of RTG/Fission Reactors. So the RTG/Fission reactors will still softcap around 2 million like they do now, regardless of whether or not you have fusion reactors.
-Fuel use is proportional to power production. However, the larger a given single reactor is, the more efficient it gets (down to maybe 20% of the fuel-per-power use of a one-block fusion reactor for very large reactors).
-The fusion reactor's power production would increase per-block with total block count in a manner similar to power capacitors.
-If a given reactor is damaged (that is, loses at least 1 block to damage), it no longer produces power. This lasts until you reboot the ship, repair it at a shipyard, or otherwise "reset" the systems. Naturally, this does not affect any reactors which are NOT touching the damaged one.
-The Reactor Computer block: an optional block that lets you easily turn on and off any reactors connected to them (without a computer, they are automatically on by default and can only be toggled by walking up to one and pressing the "use" button). Useful if you want to rely on the "free" RTG reactors when not in combat.
-You could potentially also attach certain effect systems to the computer to alter the reactors characteristics in some way. Overdrive could increase power but lower efficiency, ion could improve efficiency but reduce power production, explosive could improve power production but cause reactors to explode when damaged, etc.



2.5. Fuel (1 new block, or 2 if set up to mirror cargo blocks).
-Fuel capacity would be added via fuel tank blocks.
-The ship core would now have some built-in fuel capacity of its own, the same way it has built-in power capacity. Will the wonders of ship core technology never cease to amaze?!
-Regardless, this means you technically don't need to have fuel tanks on a very small ship that uses fuel-based systems if you don't want.
-Fuel would be produced at a Fuel Refinery Block. Which would be a new factory block (and thus follow the usual factory block restrictions). It would produce fuel from ice and water blocks. If gas giants are added, it may also be possible to obtain fuel directly from them too.
-If any other systems are added that require fuel (such as advanced thrusters), then all things that require fuel will use the same kind of fuel for simplicity.
-Various ideas can be had for the potential dangers of fuel tanks. Perhaps upon losing at least one block, a given tank would start leaking. And if a given fuel tank loses 50% or more of its blocks, it could explode violently. The first would encourage people to make multiple fuel tanks, while the second encourages them NOT to just make a checkerboard of 1-block fuel tanks. Another option (instead of explosions) would be to allow fuel capacity to scale similarly to power capacitors, such that a single large tank holds more fuel, and to keep the leaking mechanic to still encourage multiple fuel tanks.
-In a fuel menu (similar to the Thrust menu), you can set a ship or station to either take fuel from docked objects, or to send it to them by clicking a button. With future improvements to UI, you could also potentially specify a specific docked entity to do this. Alternatively, a new type of docking rail could be added which automatically attempts to refuel a ship that docks to it, allowing you to simply specify what you want to refuel based on what type of docking rail you dock it to. You could also potentially purchase fuel without docking from trade guild stations that offer it for sale (for simplicity sake, it would just be teleported aboard your ship or something). In the future, perhaps trade guild stations could get a turret with a fuel supply beam that they shoot you with when you purchase fuel.


2.6 Fuel Supply Beam (and associated computer). (2 new blocks)
-Similar to a shield supply beam or an energy supply beam. As you might guess, this beam supplies fuel.
-Useful for when you want to refuel something without needing to dock it to the ship or station carrying all the fuel (or if you only want to refuel a SINGLE thing and not every docked ship on the station).


Since fuel also brings to mind thrusters, I'll comment on those too.


3. Gravitic Thrusters (these are the currently existing thrusters given a new name) (1 already-existing block).
-The current thrusters, given a new name. These thrusters are somewhat low power, and they use a fair chunk of energy. However, they can accelerate in ANY direction, and also do not need fuel.
-Because they are versatile and don't need fuel, they are easy to use. On small ships, they are likely all you need, outside of specialized designs.
-I must stress that I feel very strongly that there should be no fuel requirement for the basic thrusters.


4. Plasma Thrusters (or a similar name like that which indicates they use fuel) (2 new blocks, 1 of which is optional)
-These would be a "second tier" of thrusters. They would cost very little energy and be much stronger than the normal gravitic thrusters.
-However, these thrusters use fuel to operate.
-Additionally, they only work for acceleration in a single direction, and provide only minor rotational thrust (and perhaps only yaw and pitch, relative to the direction of the thruster).
-The thruster menu would not effect them, except for the rotation/thrust ratio slider. After all, the direction of their thrust is already pre-determined by the direction you place them facing.
-The Thruster Computer is an optional block that would allow you to toggle fuel-fed thrusters on or off (useful for a toggle-able afterburner or a combat-only thruster). (without a computer they are on by default, and need to be turned on or off manually by walking over to them and hitting the "use" button) You could also potentially connect various effect systems to alter the traits of attached thrusters. Ion could reduce fuel use but increase power use, overdrive could increase fuel and power use but greatly increase thrust, "push/pull" could perhaps allow the thruster to also work in reverse, or to supply a small portion of their thrust to the sides, etc).





Other ideas/comments on other ideas, etc:

Maneuvering Thrusters (1 new block): These could perhaps be a fuel-using thruster system that increases your ability to turn, but don't affect your acceleration/speed. Naturally, they would not be affected by the Thruster menu. If something like Plasma Thrusters is also present, you could perhaps link them to the same Thruster Computer block if you want to be able to turn them on and off.


Solar Panels (1 new block): Could be messy to implement if we make them too complex. So lets try to make some simple rules for them:
-Would not have a softcap, or count towards the fission/RTG's softcap.
-Power generation is based on how close they are to a system's star in sectors, and which of the 6 directions of the ship is closest to "facing" the star's sector.
-Must have a clear line to space in (i.e. cannot be blocked by other blocks) at least one of the 6 directions to work at all. Provided you do that, it will provide power whenever the star is in a direction it has a clear line to space in (again, using only the 6 basic directions for simplicity purposes).
-It will not worry about shade or other complex things like that.
-Power generation can be a good deal better than an RTG/Fission reactor at small sizes. Due to not counting towards a power cap, they can also be useful for stations which may not want to worry about fuel use (while still wanting to get around the softcap).

 

[Anubis Evo]

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).

I'm only sad I haven't seen this thread sooner. This idea is spectacular! The idea has been recognized but are there any plans for this being implemented as is or perhaps a brain child variant spawned from this?

 

[NeonSturm]

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.

I'd like if every faction/player could only create/attack a limited number of stations so that trolls can't cause too much damage.

Example:
Faction "Small" can build 2x stations per day.
Faction "BigJerks" can only kill 1x station per day,
But if "Small" is at war with "SelfDefenceIsOk" and also mocked "Oarks, oarks Oarks OARks Oarks oarks Oarks",

they may lose up to 3x stations a day!!
​

x can be >1 too and depend on players per faction - I haven't found a formula eliminating all issues, so I put it here for others which are interested into it.
​

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.

If that happens, peoples would convert power into shields before supplying shield-power.
I really really don't like inability to distribute shields.

Rather than adding this, please make docked reactors run 20% (or 25 flat) efficiency per default.
It's the simplest solution and works as if the soft-cap gets crossed.
​

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

There are ways around this.
Docked satellites which circle around the station and wiggling up/down in prime-number-patterns can effectively dodge most damage and effectively use alpha-strike weapons.

They come into range, shoot (maybe push you back too) and are out of range before slower projectiles even hit.

They safely recharge behind the station if they took damage (yes, you can check for existing power which is eventually drained by a shield-hit and you can also check for killed blocks on a dummy-core with area triggers).
​

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.

7 Agrees when I posted (including mine). check it out and agree more!
​

 

[NeonSturm]

Finished reading…

That's because interior itself started being a system, though, not because another system got buffed. If anything, that kind of proves my points- a system got buffed, so people added more of it.

Imagine a 2m HARD power cap.
You can only add a certain number of thrusters, weapons, …

Then, you add your 2m FUEL reactor.
And you put thrusters on it which suck 4m e/s (racing ship) << Let's take this as 100%. 100% require 4m e/s.

You increase the 2m to a 6m fuel reactor.
And you put thrusters on it which suck 8m e/s. For this you require 200% blocks
But because larger systems get more efficient, you only need 150% blocks and because of lower mass, you fly 250% as fast.

Your fuel consumption increased to 300% and you fly 250% as fast.

Was this really a buff?
​

-The Reactor Computer block: an optional block that lets you easily turn on and off any reactors connected to them (without a computer, they are automatically on by default and can only be toggled by walking up to one and pressing the "use" button). Useful if you want to rely on the "free" RTG reactors when not in combat.

No need!
Just use an activation module like on factories or storage-pull.

-You could potentially also attach certain effect systems to the computer to alter the reactors characteristics in some way. Overdrive could increase power but lower efficiency, ion could improve efficiency but reduce power production, explosive could improve power production but cause reactors to explode when damaged, etc.

ok, this would require a computer…
Can I add ion AND explosive? Could I link multiple unique slaves?​

-Fuel would be produced at a Fuel Refinery Block. Which would be a new factory block (and thus follow the usual factory block restrictions). It would produce fuel from ice and water blocks. If gas giants are added, it may also be possible to obtain fuel directly from them too.

I wanted to use plants to produce fuel.
Some plants like red stars, others like white stars - and blue star plants would be the most effective ones.

Ofcourse plants need water and molten ice.
And unless it's anti-matter or 4-dimensional matter, I would require it as gradually-dispersing cooling-fluid or inertia-carrier.
​

2.6 Fuel Supply Beam (and associated computer). (2 new blocks)
-Similar to a shield supply beam or an energy supply beam. As you might guess, this beam supplies fuel.
-Useful for when you want to refuel something without needing to dock it to the ship or station carrying all the fuel (or if you only want to refuel a SINGLE thing and not every docked ship on the station).

Is it not more wise to outfit astrotech beams with it?

No extra blocks needed,​

If they are connected to fuel-storage, they would first repair and then supply fuel until the storage is empty.
​

Solar Panels (1 new block):
-Power generation is based on how close they are to a system's star in sectors, and which of the 6 directions of the ship is closest to "facing" the star's sector …
Due to not counting towards a power cap, they can also be useful for stations which may not want to worry about fuel use (while still wanting to get around the softcap).

I like that.
This gives stations a much needed buff against any ship incoming.
If ships are smaller individually, they can be killed individually – even if the station does not survive it may kill some attackers.
​

Solar Panels (1 new block):
-Must have a clear line to space in (i.e. cannot be blocked by other blocks) at least one of the 6 directions to work at all. Provided you do that, it will provide power whenever the star is in a direction it has a clear line to space in (again, using only the 6 basic directions for simplicity purposes).
-Power generation can be a good deal better than an RTG/Fission reactor at small sizes.

Could be exploited with docked solar panels and quadruple armour shielding.
Ships which refill near stars?
Hop, hop, hop, where is the next one? My capacitors are empty!
They would be the only ships which can assault solar-buffed stations cost-effectively.
​

With all these computers added, I really hope that they are merged into one inventory block which changes appearance/blockID based on what it is linked to.