Recognized Fuel mechanic proposal

[shadowcrusnik]

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 agree that lines and crosses are annoying. I like the idea of having specific shapes influence the efficiency of blocks, but as it stands, the sheer size of the ship you'd have to make to efficiently use your blocks is huge. Small ships are horribly inefficient blockwise, and thus more expensive (relatively), AND much weaker than large ships in general. That fact alone makes it basically impossible to effectively use small ships for anything other than transport or PvE. Using them in combat is nonsensical.

Keep the idea of shaped reactors, just don't make it tied to efficiency. My ship's efficiency should be dependent on my skill as a builder, not on how big I decided to make it.

An idea I had for that was the idea of keeping the efficiency loss with multiple reactor groups, and when placing reactors adjacent to other ones., but trashing dimensional dependence. It should be dependent on reactor block adjacency instead of group dimension vs number blocks. So if I have all my reactors linked into a single group, but manage to make it to were no one reactor is adjacent to more than 2 other blocks, that could be super efficient. Keeping lines, but allowing for smaller, compact designs. Different lines in different directions and the various possible patterns could each have different levels of efficiency, allowing for small, but efficient reactors, as well as large, but efficient, reactors, so long as the builder organizes and plans out his blocks correctly.



In relation to the this discussion, I wholeheartedly agree and hope something similar to this comes into effect. It makes large shipbuilding so much easier and simpler, as well as retaining the significant disadvantages that come with exceeding the power cap. It also gives small ships a clear advantage over larger ships, being entirely unreliant on consumable resources, increasing their longevity (relative to large ships) and allows them farther travel ranges than large ships (again, relatively) thus making it feasible to use small ships in cases of long-range strikes or excursions into deeper parts of space in search of resources or for any other exploratory reason.

 

[Pancake]

lekek's gas giant idea seems plausible. it has already been stated "somewhere™" that gas giants will become a thing in the future. before now i didn't really see a purpose for them other than aesthetic value and / or immersion but the two ideas mesh together pretty nicely.

 

[Madman198237]

I think that fuel is a nice idea, but agree with those people who disagree (Confused yet?) with the disagreeable practice that some people nevertheless agree with (How about now?), that lines and crosses is an agreeably agreeable (Still here?) method of creating a reactor setup.

In short, I don't want more utterly ridiculous methods of power generation that depend, not on physical number of power-generating structures, but on size. Seriously, what are we using for power generation now? Mystical power-antennae? Energy-creating particle accelerators?

Instead, I would like to see various sci-fi types of generation, and some not-so-sci-fi: Fission, fusion, solar radiation (Not just visible light, why waste the rest of the spectrum?), fossil-fuel burning, LOX/LH2 burning (Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, modern rocket fuels.), RTG's (Use heat from a radioactive material to generate limited amounts of electricity---maybe a semi-rare incredibly heat-radiating compound that does not expire could be used----wait, could I have come up with a use for lava?), and other thing's I'm sure I've forgotten. Each one has their own size requirements, each one is different, and each one has its own benefits/problems. Some will barely require fuel, some will be crafted with one fuel cell and be good forever (RTG or similar), while others (Fission) will take some fuel to run and the last category (LOX/LH2, fusion, fossil fuels) will take tons of fuel,

I think that, perhaps instead of all fuel being used for power generation with the present (I assume ion) thrusters, some variants of it could become necessary for a faster, further-going FTL system that we have now. Large ships that can make use of such a fuel-based system (That is large in size) can use a rare variant of fuel to travel long distances, while smaller ships become slightly more dependent on their carriers for long-range missions (As it should be) except for some sorts of scout ships that give up space-consuming weapons systems and the like in order to get a place for a small FTL system.

Also, this would mean that a high-efficiency, jet-fighter-esque fuel could be used to balance larger ships and smaller ones---smaller ships generate power however, but use a direct fuel-powered thruster for maximum power at high fuel costs, while larger ships simply could not use these to give fighter-like maneuverability due to inefficiency and expense in fuel and storage, but get longer range. Fighters/bombers/small ships use a station/planet/carrier that carries fuel for their use, and get increased power in thrust and perhaps also power generation for a short time before needing refueling.

Dang, I rambled on. Well, I think this means I've challenged the original post on word count....and it's a good, lengthy, detailed OP as well.

 

[Magrim]

Ill be honest, I was completely against a fuel based mechanic but this idea definitely has my vote good work.

 

[Xtremesonicboom]

I am completely against the idea of fuel, because the way I see it, the Thruster Block in Starmade is essentially a quantum vacuum thruster, and therefore the only thing it needs to create thrust is electricity. I acknowledge that many people may disagree with me on this, but I feel as well that many will agree that it is convenient only needing to worry about power, not power and a bunch of other resources. This isn't Kerbal Space Program. If a fuel system is integrated, it should be one of those things that you can activate in the server config, but is off by default. One other point I'd like to make. Many of the people I've talked to about playing StarMade have said that they tried it, but gave up on it because it was too complicated. Adding fuel definately wouldn't help the situation, it'd just be one more thing for a new player to learn, and one more source of frustration that could drive people away from the game.

Edit: One final thought. People hate it when I say this, but the tech in StarMade categorizes as Clarke's Third Law. We should worry less about why it works and more about the fact that it works, and we can do stuff with it.

 

[MacThule]

• 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.

• Docked reactors provide an unfair advantage to veteran players against new players, due to their really unintuitive nature (ok, that's sort of debatable)

Docked reactors are the devil. And our ships are currently running in UNLIMITED AMMO mode; having no fuel or ammo is absurd.

Fuel is desperately needed in order for this game to reach a beta level. Almost as much a kaiboshing docked reactors is needed.

 

[Pancake]

snip

we still only need to worry about power because fuel is optional from the get go, jesus christ. its purpose is to circumvent the need to put down docked reactors everywhere. it's not another KSP.

 

[Keptick]

I am completely against the idea of fuel, because the way I see it, the Thruster Block in Starmade is essentially a quantum vacuum thruster, and therefore the only thing it needs to create thrust is electricity. I acknowledge that many people may disagree with me on this, but I feel as well that many will agree that it is convenient only needing to worry about power, not power and a bunch of other resources. This isn't Kerbal Space Program. If a fuel system is integrated, it should be one of those things that you can activate in the server config, but is off by default. One other point I'd like to make. Many of the people I've talked to about playing StarMade have said that they tried it, but gave up on it because it was too complicated. Adding fuel definately wouldn't help the situation, it'd just be one more thing for a new player to learn, and one more source of frustration that could drive people away from the game.

Edit: One final thought. People hate it when I say this, but the tech in StarMade categorizes as Clarke's Third Law. We should worry less about why it works and more about the fact that it works, and we can do stuff with it.

At least read the suggestion before replying. It's pretty clear that you didn't :p

Hint: It's not about fuel for thrusters.

 

[Sgtwisky]

At least read the suggestion before replying. It's pretty clear that you didn't :p

Hint: It's not about fuel for thrusters.

Why do people post without reading the entire OP? I can understand not reading the replies(though I think ignoring them is not the best choice.). But why post without knowing the actual suggestion? /end rant

 

[Pacific_Jim]

One way I'd be interesting in seeing the fuel powered reactors work is if they effectively worked in a similar way to docked reactors, ie similar size and output. By that I mean each individual reactor is capped at about 1.5 million energy per second, so balance wise they don't shake things up too much. It would also be nice if they (or bits of them) exploded.

 

[Madman198237]

Docked reactors are the devil. And our ships are currently running in UNLIMITED AMMO mode; having no fuel or ammo is absurd.

Fuel is desperately needed in order for this game to reach a beta level. Almost as much a kaiboshing docked reactors is needed.

Bandanna skull, man! And an assault rifle!

Oh wait....wrong game. But wait again, this is sci-fi as well. So, Bandanna skull!
But seriously, bandanna with an AR? Die grunts, die!

 

[lupoCani]

Noooooooooo! We ! Don't! Want! Another! K! S! P! Please!.........but good thought.

For the record, what makes KSP the game it is is not fuel. It's fuel with weight. If storage doesn't add much mass or resource usage, you won't get any of the same effect.

As for the suggestion itself... it's certainly better than average. To some extent, it suffers from the same problem as most other fuel suggestions- "Let's use a fuel mechanic to solve this one problem."

As far as I'm concerned, fuel is an infrastructure mechanic. It's primary purpose is to provide an upkeep factor to ships, to translate the size of a fleet into a proportional need for machinery back home. Thus, any implementation should begin with something of that nature- a certain size of a ship, a certain percentage of active-use time, a certain amount of fuel per day.

Of course, infrastructure can be used to balance combat and vice-versa, but I don't think it's wise to begin with those specifics. Put a more general form of fuel in, see how it affects things, and then begin crossing mechanics back and forth.

Still, it really is better than average. The "one problem" in question is a very central one, and the implementation is still pretty general. Still, I would probably like to see docked reactors solved on their own, or not until later.

 

[MacThule]

For the record, what makes KSP the game it is is not fuel. It's fuel with weight. If storage doesn't add much mass or resource usage, you won't get any of the same effect.

As for the suggestion itself... it's certainly better than average. To some extent, it suffers from the same problem as most other fuel suggestions- "Let's use a fuel mechanic to solve this one problem."

As far as I'm concerned, fuel is an infrastructure mechanic. It's primary purpose is to provide an upkeep factor to ships, to translate the size of a fleet into a proportional need for machinery back home. Thus, any implementation should begin with something of that nature- a certain size of a ship, a certain percentage of active-use time, a certain amount of fuel per day.

Of course, infrastructure can be used to balance combat and vice-versa, but I don't think it's wise to begin with those specifics. Put a more general form of fuel in, see how it affects things, and then begin crossing mechanics back and forth.

Still, it really is better than average. The "one problem" in question is a very central one, and the implementation is still pretty general. Still, I would probably like to see docked reactors solved on their own, or not until later.

Agreed wholeheartedly. And if they truly mean to improve upon the strategy aspect of the game (which fleets are a pretty strong indicator of), the abovementioned infrastructure must be vulnerable to attack, that is to say not invulnerable (a problem not impossible to solve in any number of ways, each with drawbacks and advantages, but many better than the current unassailable infrastructure that means real fighting is pointless because long-term advantage can be gained.

I'm eager to see docked power remanded to history - too many multiplayer crashes and server freeze ups. I think it's an independent issue as well though.

 

[shadowcrusnik]

Here's how you fix docked reactors.

Docked Entities reactors auto-share power. This can be toggled on or off. Support Weaponry on docked entities does not collide with the entity it is docked with, or any entities docked to that entity.

Reactors on docked entities with share enabled simply count as additional reactor groups for that entity.

"But this nerf's the power of large ships so hard! Now my [X] million block titan is useless!"

Exactly. We need large ships to be incredibly costly to build and be inefficient, so that if you have one it is alot of power, but building more than one is not feasible. Making the medium size and small ships actually the more efficient and better way to go.


Once that is in place, think of a better way to handle power capping, maybe this fuel idea could work (I see merit in it, as long as fuel consumption is high and fuel is hard to come by and expensive to maintain). Large ships biggest drawback and the determining factor in whether or not you actually build the damned things should be whether or not you can actually afford to run it.

Like someone said before me, fuel is an infrastructure and ship upkeep system, and the biggest reason for why huge ships dominate this game sooo hard is because there is literally Zero upkeep involved.

Aside from repairing battle damage (which shipyards have made infinitely easier), there is nothing I have to do to ensure my ships stay running. That is why we need a fuel mechanic at least similar to what keptick has suggested here.

 

[Keptick]

For the record, what makes KSP the game it is is not fuel. It's fuel with weight. If storage doesn't add much mass or resource usage, you won't get any of the same effect.

As for the suggestion itself... it's certainly better than average. To some extent, it suffers from the same problem as most other fuel suggestions- "Let's use a fuel mechanic to solve this one problem."

As far as I'm concerned, fuel is an infrastructure mechanic. It's primary purpose is to provide an upkeep factor to ships, to translate the size of a fleet into a proportional need for machinery back home. Thus, any implementation should begin with something of that nature- a certain size of a ship, a certain percentage of active-use time, a certain amount of fuel per day.

Of course, infrastructure can be used to balance combat and vice-versa, but I don't think it's wise to begin with those specifics. Put a more general form of fuel in, see how it affects things, and then begin crossing mechanics back and forth.

Still, it really is better than average. The "one problem" in question is a very central one, and the implementation is still pretty general. Still, I would probably like to see docked reactors solved on their own, or not until later.

Agreed wholeheartedly. And if they truly mean to improve upon the strategy aspect of the game (which fleets are a pretty strong indicator of), the abovementioned infrastructure must be vulnerable to attack, that is to say not invulnerable (a problem not impossible to solve in any number of ways, each with drawbacks and advantages, but many better than the current unassailable infrastructure that means real fighting is pointless because long-term advantage can be gained.

I'm eager to see docked power remanded to history - too many multiplayer crashes and server freeze ups. I think it's an independent issue as well though.

I agree with both of you. However, I have yet to see a solution to docked reactors that doesn't either completely obliterate the balance of every single ship built so far or exacerbate #3. Simply disabling them (ex: making acfivation of power supply beams with logic impossible) still leaves the problem of large ships being power starved, which would lead to a mess of power consumption and balance changes required to rectify the problem.

Alternatively, simply increasing the power cap to a very high value (ex: 100mil e/sec) would effectively render docked reactors useless without changing the balance of the game (their efficiency would probably be curbed a bit to account for the space that was required for logic and powersupply systems). However, this would exacerbate the problem of small ships having 0 advantage over large ships, apart from better system/weapon efficiency (but let's be real, unless you're using a drone swarm that difference doesn't amount to much). So increasing the power cap could prove to be an alright TEMPORARY solution until something is done to adress #3.

Having a running cost and need for infrasfrucfure was the only solution I could think of that would allow us to solve the lag caused by docked reactors without requiring massive ship refits, balance changes. At the same time it gives small ships a role without completely nerfing large ships into oblivion. Large ships should still have a use, they're are inherent part of this game.

Fuel would basically kill docked reactors without rendering large or small ships useless.

 

[lupoCani]

I can see a few venues. My favorite is probably to make docked reactors part of the game proper.

Add some sort of block or system to isolate volumes of a ship. Isolated volumes have their own softcaps, but power regen is the only stat to transfer to the rest of the ship. A few limitations, say, the shape can't be irregular, has to be walled on all sides, and something else to not make lots of isolated volumes in line shapes the most efficient structure, and we should have most of the benefits of docked reactors with none of the lag.

 

[Keptick]

Here's how you fix docked reactors.

Docked Entities reactors auto-share power. This can be toggled on or off. Support Weaponry on docked entities does not collide with the entity it is docked with, or any entities docked to that entity.

Reactors on docked entities with share enabled simply count as additional reactor groups for that entity.

"But this nerf's the power of large ships so hard! Now my [X] million block titan is useless!"

Exactly. We need large ships to be incredibly costly to build and be inefficient, so that if you have one it is alot of power, but building more than one is not feasible. Making the medium size and small ships actually the more efficient and better way to go.


Once that is in place, think of a better way to handle power capping, maybe this fuel idea could work (I see merit in it, as long as fuel consumption is high and fuel is hard to come by and expensive to maintain). Large ships biggest drawback and the determining factor in whether or not you actually build the damned things should be whether or not you can actually afford to run it.

Like someone said before me, fuel is an infrastructure and ship upkeep system, and the biggest reason for why huge ships dominate this game sooo hard is because there is literally Zero upkeep involved.

Aside from repairing battle damage (which shipyards have made infinitely easier), there is nothing I have to do to ensure my ships stay running. That is why we need a fuel mechanic at least similar to what keptick has suggested here.

That would be the single largest nerf in the history of starmade. Basically every ship that go over 2mil e/sec (which is not even what I'd consider a large ship) would get hit by the nerf bat. Sorry, but I can't agree with that; Large ships also have a place in this game.

I can also guarantee that the forums would burn if something like that was implemented.

I can see a few venues. My favorite is probably to make docked reactors part of the game proper.

Add some sort of block or system to isolate volumes of a ship. Isolated volumes have their own softcaps, but power regen is the only stat to transfer to the rest of the ship. A few limitations, say, the shape can't be irregular, has to be walled on all sides, and something else to not make lots of isolated volumes in line shapes the most efficient structure, and we should have most of the benefits of docked reactors with none of the lag.

Wouldn't increasing the soft cap to something people would never reach (ex: 200mil e/sec) achieve the same thing?

 

[lupoCani]

Wouldn't increasing the soft cap to something people would never reach (ex: 200mil e/sec) achieve the same thing?

Not quite, if the specifics are done right. Raising the softcap, you'd just have people building monstrously large crosses through their capitals, with even more monstrous power outputs. IVs would allow efficient power gen over the softcap, while still being somewhat limited and impractical if used in excess. The no-stats-trasfer thing means you sacrafice significant volume in order to get your regen, the regular shape rule will require reactor cube design, the isolation part could make them weak points if, say, puncured.

 

[Lecic]

Exactly. We need large ships to be incredibly costly to build and be inefficient,

Do you play the game? Any server that doesn't have absurd mining multipliers means big ships are very expensive, and large ships are incredibly inefficient. Weapons get worse at breaking lots of things, armor costs more and more for the same thickness, thrust and rotation are slower, shields are worse, you die at a higher SHP %, and, most importantly for this suggestion, docked reactors are less efficient having a bunch of smaller ships all at the power softcap. The only think that DOESN'T get worse is power capacity.

 

[Zekester81]

I'm sort of on board. Fuel should be heavy or something too. You could probably skip the extra fuel storage blocks and just use a regular storage block and cargo space by simply adding another button into the storage block interface making it a fuel storage space. Then you could link it to dockers and rails for fuel transfers and such.