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):
- 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)
- 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):
- 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.
- 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).
