Have I just fixed the power update?

[DoomCarrot]

After tweaking some settings with the pre-release build, I have found that reducing the stab-reactor distance for efficiency has virtually made all ship types useable.

With default config, there are some clear problems that I will skim through (cause everyone knows them):

1. Reactor/stabs don't produce strong power unless you make them far apart in either a spaghetti monster or or a giant tube.

2. Not enough power is produced to build a ship any larger/differently designed than said tube/spaghetti.

Essentially, it is a vicious cycle of having to make super long tubes for maximum power, but then not being able to produce enough power to make an interesting ship, so you make the tube longer/bigger, but then you don't have enough power to make the now much larger ship

I tried two things.

1. Increase power output of reactors

2. Decrease stab/reactor efficiency distance

What I found this did:

1. A small reactor could power a fairly large ship. This allowed interesting designs and hull shapes

2. Because I could build a smaller reactor for 100% efficiency, I was able to place it nearly anywhere in my hull that I wanted.

I did find that it was possibly *too* easy to generate power, and therefore my personal tests were probably unbalanced, as even a small reactor could support some pretty ridiculous systems....

However, I do now believe that some tweaks to the default config of the power system can result in a balanced system that allows players to still build whatever they want without penalties. Sure, a meta will probably still exist in some form depending on what settings are tweaked, but I think if I was able to figure out a fairly playable balance with a couple hours of playtesting, the dev team should certainly be able to get a much better balance as well.

Still not sure how I feel about the confusing integrity system, and stab beam system though.

Thoughts? I cannot be the only one to be playing around with the dev builds like this, and surely some of the outspoken dissidents of the new power have probably seen serious flaws with what I have tried, but I myself do not entirely see what they are.

 

[Ryuusei]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not really.

Not trying to be rude here, but changing a few settings in the config file really wouldn't qualify as "fixing" something. If anything, you may have made the new power update "bearable" or "playable" to the point that people can simply "get by" with it. Given what has come to light and how fragile the power stream is, it's safe to assume that there are more problems with this update than simply the distance between the reactor and the stabilizer blocks.

Also, I am unsure if you are aware of this, but at one point, Lancake posted a config file that was modified to reduce the distance required for stabilizers down to 0, so reactors and stabilizers could be side by side and they worked like that. You have essentially done the same thing here, but much less extreme (he did 0 distance required. You did reduced, which is more balanced, IMO). I would have to go find the thread he made regarding that config file change and see how the testing of that went. It's around here somewhere, but I'm sure someone that did test that out will say something (that is my hope, anyway).

You're thinking in the right direction. No doubt about that. But, much more needs to be changed with this update than the distance gap between the two block types.

In regards to increasing the power generated by the reactor blocks, that also seems to be a step in the right direction, but needs to be taken in moderation. Those two settings, if configured properly, might provide a better power system (not as good as we would like it to be, but, as I said, step in the right direction), as well as restoring a much broader array of design choices for players.

Since I absolutely suck at reading code lines, would you be so kind as you provide which lines you edited in the config file to achieve your test results? I would like to run a few tests of my own between V1 power and V2 power, as well as some edited V2 settings to see what works best and relay that back to the community.

*EDIT*
Nvm. Found the values for reactors and stabilizers. I'll be running my tests tonight.

 

[Dire Venom]

I think one of the main issues is the pushback from the devs.
When these changes were suggested, their instant reaction was "That will destroy balance", "They are necessary", despite tests such as these showing that a few tweaks can provide a far more enjoyable and possibly balanced experiance.

 

[DoomCarrot]

I think one of the main issues is the pushback from the devs.
When these changes were suggested, their instant reaction was "That will destroy balance", "They are necessary", despite tests such as these showing that a few tweaks can provide a far more enjoyable and possibly balanced experiance.

However, cannot servers and such simply do this on their own? After all, nobody is forced to play under the constraints of the default settings. I think if the update were released tomorrow, most servers would do exactly what I have done and the game would at least be playable and fun still, albeit very differently balanced compared to what we are used to. With my system, the only things different from original power is this:

1. Power is grouped instead of strung across the ship

2. Power can be easily crippled if your ship takes on a lucky hit

Neither of these changes seem really game breaking or unbalanced. Yes, with my settings you could spam power and shields.

But you can also do that with the current system if you load your ship with an effecient power system and fill in every gap with shields.

These tests give me hope that this sustem could be useable at least, although I am not giving my support to the change yet lol.

 

[enterprise0709]

which values in which config files did you alter?

 

[Ryuusei]

which values in which config files did you alter?

Go into your Starmade folder (Usually Steam/Steamapps/Common/Starmade) and go into Starmade/data/config. Look for a file named "blockBehaviorConfig". Open that file using a word processor app, like Notepad or Wordpad.

PLEASE NOTE: It seems the latest pre-release (200.309) has broken the config file, and it is no longer "organized" like it should be, and the code is going to be a garbled mess. I suggest sticking with a earlier pre-release (200.305)

Once open go up to "edit" and select "Go to...". enter line 146. This will take you to some of the lines you need to edit to change how the blocks behave. It should look something like this:

<!-- Power -->
                        <ReactorConduitPowerConsuptionPerSec>0.0</ReactorConduitPowerConsuptionPerSec> <!-- conduit power usage -->
                        <ReactorSwitchCooldownSec>10</ReactorSwitchCooldownSec> <!-- time in seconds to wait until active reacor can be switched again -->
                        <ReactorRechargePercentPerSecond>1.0</ReactorRechargePercentPerSecond> <!-- percentage of power capacity recharged per second -->
                        <ReactorRechargeMultiplierWhenEmpty>1.0</ReactorRechargeMultiplierWhenEmpty> <!-- multiplied with recharget when power was 0 last cycle -->
                        <ReactorMainCountMultiplier>1.0</ReactorMainCountMultiplier> <!-- for capacity, multiply amount of main reactor blocks with this (capacity = min(reactorBlocks, stabilization)) -->
                        <ReactorPowerCapacityMultiplier>100.0</ReactorPowerCapacityMultiplier> <!-- multiply capacity end result with this -->
                        <ReactorStabilizationMultiplier>1.0</ReactorStabilizationMultiplier> <!-- for capacity, multiply amount of main reactor blocks with this (capacity = min(reactorBlocks, stabilization)). stabilization is +1 for each optimal distance stabilizer, falls off when closer -->

The "<ReactorPowerCapacityMultiplier>" line is the one you want to modify for more recharge per reactor (default 100).

Now, go to line 194. You should see this:

<ReactorStabilizerStartingDistance>-7.5</ReactorStabilizerStartingDistance> <!-- inital distance -->
                        <ReactorStabilizerLinearFalloffOne>1.0</ReactorStabilizerLinearFalloffOne> <!-- percentage of distance at which or farther away the stabilizer counts as 1 -->
                        <ReactorStabilizerLinearFalloffZero>0.2</ReactorStabilizerLinearFalloffZero> <!-- percentage of distance at which or closer the stabilizer counts as 0 -->
                        <ReactorStabilizerFreeMainReactorBlocks>10</ReactorStabilizerFreeMainReactorBlocks> <!-- amount of free stabilization added -->
                        <ReactorStabilizerDistanceTotalMult>2.0</ReactorStabilizerDistanceTotalMult>
                        <ReactorStabilizerGroupingProximity>3.0</ReactorStabilizerGroupingProximity>

This is where you can edit the distance requirements for 100% stabilization.

MAKE SURE YOU SAVE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL BEFORE YOU EDIT!

I don't know what kinds of effects editing the block behaviors will have on your game. So, save a copy of the original file before you start editing. Better to error on the side of caution.

 

[MacThule]

the latest pre-release (200.309) has broken the config file, and it is no longer "organized" like it should be, and the code is going to be a garbled mess.

I find this very interesting. I wonder what is up with this.

 

[Dire Venom]

I find this very interesting. I wonder what is up with this.

(Devs removing the config file so no one can remove stabilizers lol)

Probably making some changes. I look forward to seeing some documentation.

 

[Ryuusei]

I find this very interesting. I wonder what is up with this.

Yeah. When I get the latest and went to check the config, I saw when I opened it in Notepad (and wordpad) that each line of code was no longer a separate line, but it seemed to be one long run-on line of code. It was only with the config files for .307, .308, and .309 that I had this issue. Once I reverted back to .305, the config file was back to each line of code having it's own line.

If you want to run .309, you can try and look through the mess, as I suspect that those much more well-versed than I can sort it out with ease.

 

[Antikristianos]

Yeah. When I get the latest and went to check the config, I saw when I opened it in Notepad (and wordpad) that each line of code was no longer a separate line, but it seemed to be one long run-on line of code. It was only with the config files for .307, .308, and .309 that I had this issue. Once I reverted back to .305, the config file was back to each line of code having it's own line.

If you want to run .309, you can try and look through the mess, as I suspect that those much more well-versed than I can sort it out with ease.

this seems to be a "compilation error" where your viewing program can't cope with the used "line seperators" of the program used to create the files.
try some other programs to view the files. may be you find one that can read the used charset correct and will show you the seperate lines as they should be.

sorry that i can't point you to a working program but i seem to have lost mine during some pc re installation cleanup... :-(

 

[Batavium]

Yeah. When I get the latest and went to check the config, I saw when I opened it in Notepad (and wordpad) that each line of code was no longer a separate line, but it seemed to be one long run-on line of code.

sorry that i can't point you to a working program but i seem to have lost mine during some pc re installation cleanup... :-(

I found Notepad++ to be a great editor for all kinds of StarMade files. It is a small, free and open source program. I have not tried it on any 2.0 files but maybe worth a shot.

 

[Daeridanii]

Okay: a few thoughts with this.

I have not tried it on any 2.0 files but maybe worth a shot.

Notepad ++ works fine on 2.0 files by my testing.


A rough config that I found to be a lot better was this:

1. Line 177 in blockBehaviorConfig.xml is the stabilizer distance multiplier for the (default) exponential setup.
2. By default it is set to 10.
3. I changed it to 4. This makes the optimal stabilizer distance 40% of default.
4. This makes the optimal distance for my 72k e/s, 650 block test reactor, 54 metres.

Notes:

• This still makes relatively sizeable reactors required for powerhungry ships, but they no longer have to look like noodles.
• Stabilizer distance is still enough to add dimension to larger ships.

I do strongly encourage those of you who aren't satisfied with the current stabilizer behavior (so, basically everyone, including myself) to at the very least play around with the configs. It'll be interesting to see some more quantitative suggestions regarding the power system.

 

[Valiant70]

(Devs removing the config file so no one can remove stabilizers lol)

Probably making some changes. I look forward to seeing some documentation.

*presses phantom "funny" button*

 

[Dire Venom]

*presses phantom "funny" button*

We do have emotes we can post... maybe they will become the new reaction images:?


1x 2x 4x 42x