"Heat Boxes" and Crew - Why it Works

[Valiant70]

"Heat boxes" or "magnetic interference fields" were introduced as part of the first power overhaul proposal here: Power System Overhaul Proposal

One argument against the mechanic was that the crew system would solve the problem, rendering the exclusion zones around systems pointless. However, this is not necessarily the case. I will explain how the heat box mechanic could work well alongside and compliment NPC crew if systems are balanced correctly.

If the overhaul is done right, very small ships should remain similar to the way they are now. Small ships will change a bit, leaving some space open for basic interiors. Medium ships will change a lot, leaving quite a bit of room open for interiors, and massive ships (>1km long) will be mostly empty space that can be used for crew and decoration.

Here's where crew come in. The larger the ship, the more space is required between systems. This can be used both to limit the effectiveness of a massive ship and to introduce a need for crew to reach peak performance. The larger the systems, the more support crew is required and the more space there is to put them.

Actually getting everything to work nicely in practice is a numbers game that will take quite a bit of time and play-testing.

 

[jontyfreack]

I approve of this.

 

[alterintel]

It may actually work out, but it makes even less sense than reactor lines. It's just intuitive to make things more efficient by making the most use of space, by packing it full of stuff and not leaving a bunch of empty space. Also this makes crew more than just one Officer providing a bonus to your system. This would require a number of nameless crew to man any given system depending on it's size. this would make your crew less valuable and more expendable.

 

[Valiant70]

It may actually work out, but it makes even less sense than reactor lines. It's just intuitive to make things more efficient by making the most use of space, by packing it full of stuff and not leaving a bunch of empty space.

To me it makes far more sense that a system would put out an area of interference than it does that we get power from lines of... WTF are they anyway? The beatboxes mainly provide room for creative freedom so that one is not penalized for leaving enough room for cool glowing things and catwalks around the reactor or warp core.

I think Schine's original idea of having an area 10 times the size of the system itself is a bit excessive, but having some space around systems is a good thing for creativity and makes a fair amount of sense functionally. That same space can be used for crew to get in and work on things.

Also this makes crew more than just one Officer providing a bonus to your system. This would require a number of nameless crew to man any given system depending on it's size. this would make your crew less valuable and more expendable.

This is a valid point for larger ships. The question is whether this is desirable or not. Some will argue that it is desirable because Star Trek wouldn't be Star Trek without redshirts to get killed by Kingons, giant apes, and the Horta. Hopefully small and medium ships will only need a few crew members to function optimally.

 

[jontyfreack]

crew less valuable and more expendable.

good, good.

crew in starmade shouldn't be irreplaceable as you will have a lot of them in a lot of ships, they should be nearly worthless so you have a lot of them, and so that they don't create so much of an impact if you lose a few of them. however like that they are more important to the people who only use 1 ship, as you don't want to have to lose them as you wont have spares of them.
[doublepost=1492452775,1492451907][/doublepost]I just read that and could not understand myself clearly.

basically in a faction/empire you will have a lot of crew and it wont matter how cheap they are as you can just get some more if you lose some. however if you only have 1 smallish ship you will not want to lose your crew as you do not have any extra in another ship or station, fortunately you wont need many because your ship is small.

in a faction/empire you are likely to have several large ships with A LOT of crew in, this makes the larger ships more valuable because you have a lot of crew in them, and at the same time makes smaller ships less valuable as you can lose the crew in them and still grab more crew from a pool of crew used for the larger ships. but if you lose a larger ship you lose a lot of crew, and so it all balances out in the end:

small 4 person ship on its own, crew is less important and but irreplaceable when lost.
small 4 person ship in a fleet, crew is not important but replaceable.
big ship on its own, crew is very important but irreplaceable.
big ship in a fleet, crew is very important, but can be used to crew the other small ships if they lose crew, replaceable unless the entire ship is destroyed.

this leads onto the heat boxes and crew idea.
say a small ship has; power, shields, and a cannon. having 3 crew members would buff each system respectively, having 6 would double that buff and so on... at this size crew only adds a buff to systems, and is a nice thing but not necessary to make it work well.

now a larger ship, the heat boxes will be a large thing and will make them on their own less efficient than a smaller ship, as you will have smaller "bricks" of systems that are further apart, basically they wont be very efficient. crew comes in handy here.
say each system is working at 0.7 efficiency, you need a crew member per system to up that my 0.1, so you would need 3 crew per system for it to be working at 1 efficiency (crew is important here) and then the extra crew provide a buff, but at 0.05, so for every 2 crew per system you go up 0.1.

so that would be 0.7 + 3 crew gives you a good ship. +6 gives you a ship with an efficiency of 1.1 and so on.

 

[Brokengauge]

This is a good concept. I like it. Obviously, any numbers you've used are solely for example, right? lol

 

[jontyfreack]

This is a good concept. I like it. Obviously, any numbers you've used are solely for example, right? lol

yep, just for example

 

[Valiant70]

It's just intuitive to make things more efficient by making the most use of space, by packing it full of stuff and not leaving a bunch of empty space

Another way to approach this whole issue is to simply make ALL systems shape-sensitive, which I think they should be anyway to some extent. This would eliminate the block-stuffing meta and leave players free to cram the shaped thingies into whatever they can and/or want to.

Perhaps the best solution lies somewhere in the middle ground of all of this, with all shaped systems, small interference boxes (enough to justify a room or some walkways around each machine), and crew requirements for large systems to work well.

To clarify what I mean by "shaped systems:"
You can't just stuff a few blocks in somewhere and get X number of weapon DPS or shield hitpoints. You have to make some kind of predefined shape, but you can vary the dimensions of the thing and how many gizmos you glue to it to change its behavior.

To clarify what I mean by "small interference boxes:"
To put it simply, multiple system constructs cannot be inside one another. No, you may NOT put a big gun in that empty space in the middle of your torus-shaped reactor!... and don't run the power conduit through the gap in the side of the hyper-coil-thingy because it will make things short out. For very large systems, a few blocks of space are required around and between machines, so you can't put two DEATH STAR LAZORZ one block apart. You have to have a space for these guys to stand there and cover their ears when it fires.

The size of the space required around large systems could be adjusted to enforce the need for crew. How? It limits the density of systems for a ship of a given size, thus making very large ships potentially very weak without crew. This can be further adjusted by making crew-based buffs greater or smaller.

In the end, the interference/heat boxes open up more possibilities for balancing, so they should probably be included in some form.

 

[Lecic]

Much like the people arguing heat boxes were good for interior/crew in the original threads, this does not actually address WHY it needs to be heatboxes. What do heatboxes do that requiring an increasingly larger number of crew for bigger and bigger systems does not do on it own? Simply put, heatboxes are an unnecessary and restrictive system.
The only possible purpose they might serve is to encourage people to future proof their designs before crew are actually added. That's it. That's the only positive, among an ocean of negatives, and in the meantime, the overall balance and quality of the game will suffer tremendously because of them.

 

[Valiant70]

this does not actually address WHY it needs to be heatboxes

See the post just before yours. (We kind of posted simultaneously)

 

[Lecic]

See the post just before yours. (We kind of posted simultaneously)

Another way to approach this whole issue is to simply make ALL systems shape-sensitive, which I think they should be anyway to some extent. This would eliminate the block-stuffing meta and leave players free to cram the shaped thingies into whatever they can and/or want to.

This shits on irregularly shaped ships. Furthermore, again, it does not address WHY it needs to be heatboxes.

 

[Raisinbat]

This shits on irregularly shaped ships. Furthermore, again, it does not address WHY it needs to be heatboxes.

It also fails to address every gameplay issue with the current power system:

• High delay weapons extremely inefficient
• Low capacity high regen ships are only viable power grid design
• Heavily favours miniships / modular ships

Along with the multitude of expected exploits

• chandelier ships
• interior spaces can also be used for fighters or warhead torps : interior adds nothing, these add something
• empty space, which is the limiting factor for heatbox ships, is free so floating system blocks with empty space between them are perfectly viable
• Mechanics stil give stat bonusses to smaller entities = modular ships will dominate even harder.

If the overhaul is done right, very small ships should remain similar to the way they are now. Small ships will change a bit, leaving some space open for basic interiors. Medium ships will change a lot, leaving quite a bit of room open for interiors, and massive ships (>1km long) will be mostly empty space that can be used for crew and decoration.

Ok, but why though?

Why should gameplay be thrown out the window in order to force people to build interiors? The entire premise for these changes is so insane if i hadn't gotten used to how ridiculous these forums are i'd assume it was some elaborate troll...

 

[Valiant70]

This shits on irregularly shaped ships. Furthermore, again, it does not address WHY it needs to be heatboxes.

Am I the only irregular-shaped ship builder who disagrees? Surely not. I'd love to have functional elements poking out here and there to help me with greebling. It all just adds another dimension to creativity. With several different systems, each a separate shape, and some space between them, I think I could find enough different re-arrangements to keep me happy.

Furthermore, again, it does not address WHY it needs to be heatboxes.

Hmm... I sure thought I addressed this. Just to be sure, I made a version with pictures.

In the hypothetical future, a reactor for a 100m-long ship will look like this:

Spoiler: Reactor

Without any kind of exclusion zone, and the only requirement being "crew must be able to walk the length of the reactor," a minmaxed reactor room will look something like this:

Spoiler: Reactor... room?

http://i.imgur.com/l0hAue3.png

It's compact, it's got a layer of armor around it, and the crew can walk through. Perfect piece of engineering, but it looks like crap and there's no way to fix that without unnecessary space/weight. I'd LIKE to make it pretty, but I'm planning on using this ship for PVP so... eeeeh. Too painful.

With a heatbox-like mechanic creating a 3-meter exclusion zone around the thing, I won't feel so bad about adding a few blocks to the inside. I need a walkway for the crew anyway, and in this theoretical future, Schine has further reduced the weight and HP of decoration blocks. The result:

Spoiler: Simple Reactor Room.

Looks okay, adds no space that wouldn't have been there anyway, and also means I can fly this ship on the RP server without getting banned for a "doom wedge."

This has been the primary argument for exclusion zones or "heat boxes" all along. They actually add MORE creative freedom rather than removing it. I didn't HAVE to add that pretty stuff in there. I could shave off a couple mass points by ripping it out or gain a few points of HP by stuffing it with "filler blocks" but the effect is small enough I don't really care. I have a little more mass and a little more HP. Big, fat, hairy deal. I don't need more armor to cover the outside of my ship because the internals are the same size as an undecorated block of systems, so I'm not losing anything there.

Some restrictions on building are needed, as evidenced by the state of the current meta, and Schine has recognized this. What exactly the restrictions are... is up for debate. Got any ideas other than exclusion zones that will have the same or similar effect as above? If so I'd love to hear them.

 

[Brokengauge]

Going into "why heatboxes" didn't seem like it was part of the focus of this post. Though I suppose that was partially covered here:

To clarify what I mean by "shaped systems:"
You can't just stuff a few blocks in somewhere and get X number of weapon DPS or shield hitpoints. You have to make some kind of predefined shape, but you can vary the dimensions of the thing and how many gizmos you glue to it to change its behavior.

To clarify what I mean by "small interference boxes:"
To put it simply, multiple system constructs cannot be inside one another. No, you may NOT put a big gun in that empty space in the middle of your torus-shaped reactor!... and don't run the power conduit through the gap in the side of the hyper-coil-thingy because it will make things short out. For very large systems, a few blocks of space are required around and between machines, so you can't put two DEATH STAR LAZORZ one block apart. You have to have a space for these guys to stand there and cover their ears when it fires.

Which is something I can get behind. I like to build my ships with "shaped systems" already. It would be cool for MY way of doing things also become more viable tactically.

A totally selfish line of reasoning, I know. So many ppl have already sunk time and energy into this game. They're used to how the power system works. They don't want it to change because then all their "work" has been wasted. Or maybe it isn't due to wasted work, but just having to deal with the BS of what doesn't seem like an objectively better system.

If the power gets changed, PvP and RP styled should be evened out. Then PvP and RP players can intermingle freely without having to worry about getting curb stomped/horribly bored. If it doesn't, change the PvP ships will always have better combat performance than RP ships. PvP and RP players will stay segregated into their own niche groups.

 

[Valiant70]

chandelier ships

Unless the beatboxes are stupidly large (which I am against), these will be heavier than ships with a simple, smooth hull.

interior spaces can also be used for fighters or warhead torps : interior adds nothing, these add something

Effects on docked entities are up for discussion. Parking fighters (or anything with system or warhead blocks) within the exclusion zone could be a no-no.

empty space, which is the limiting factor for heatbox ships, is free so floating system blocks with empty space between them are perfectly viable

...Your point? Same as chandelier ships. If that works particularly well, the beatboxes are too large.

Mechanics stil give stat bonusses to smaller entities = modular ships will dominate even harder.

What are you basing this on? The system doesn't even exist yet. Even so, there are multiple ways to prevent this such as:

• No stat transfer "up" docking chains
• Actually balance the stats
• [insert several methods based on mechanics and nuances we have yet to imagine and discuss]

Going into "why heatboxes" didn't seem like it was part of the focus of this post. Though I suppose that was partially covered here:

This is also correct. This post was focused on interaction between crew and heatboxes. My post with pictures is also fairly focused on this topic, as it shows how crew requirements and beatboxes work together to achieve a particular effect.
[doublepost=1492463412,1492463261][/doublepost]

Why should gameplay be thrown out the window in order to force people to build interiors? The entire premise for these changes is so insane if i hadn't gotten used to how ridiculous these forums are i'd assume it was some elaborate troll...

"This solution would be drastic and would require you to refit power in almost all of your ships. However, in the long run this would still be better as changes in the new system would require a lot less adaption from this point on. So instead of frustrating players with small changes that likely wouldn’t fix the problems to begin with and would require players to refit their ships every time, we decided that it’s better to do one big change to solve the core problems once and for all." -- schema
From here, second paragraph of Introduction: Power System Overhaul Proposal

 

[Lecic]

This has been the primary argument for exclusion zones or "heat boxes" all along. They actually add MORE creative freedom rather than removing it. I didn't HAVE to add that pretty stuff in there. I could shave off a couple mass points by ripping it out or gain a few points of HP by stuffing it with "filler blocks" but the effect is small enough I don't really care. I have a little more mass and a little more HP. Big, fat, hairy deal. I don't need more armor to cover the outside of my ship because the internals are the same size as an undecorated block of systems, so I'm not losing anything there.

Oh, yeah, specifically shaped systems and exclusion zones really add more creative freedom. In other news, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Again- how do heatboxes actually encourage interior where crew simply needing walking space to perform their jobs does not?

If the power gets changed, PvP and RP styled should be evened out. Then PvP and RP players can intermingle freely without having to worry about getting curb stomped/horribly bored. If it doesn't, change the PvP ships will always have better combat performance than RP ships. PvP and RP players will stay segregated into their own niche groups.

The fact that people actually believe this really boggles my mind. Heatboxes do nothing to fix the underlying problems with RP vs PvP, which is that RP builders are building ships with shitty systems designs, choices, and layouts. An "RP ship" with properly designed systems and nice interior will stack up perfectly fine against a ship of similar mass that doesn't have one. At that point it's mostly down to pilot skill.

Heatboxes will still have PvP ships smacking RP-er designed ships into next tuesday, and it's not because of balance problems with the game.

 

[Raisinbat]

This has been the primary argument for exclusion zones or "heat boxes" all along. They actually add MORE creative freedom rather than removing it. I didn't HAVE to add that pretty stuff in there. I could shave off a couple mass points by ripping it out or gain a few points of HP by stuffing it with "filler blocks" but the effect is small enough I don't really care. I have a little more mass and a little more HP. Big, fat, hairy deal. I don't need more armor to cover the outside of my ship because the internals are the same size as an undecorated block of systems, so I'm not losing anything there.

This is the point where you absolutely fail to explain your case.

First of all, we're asking WHY this change should be made, not what the effects are or how to do them.

Secondly "creativity" is not limited to aesthetics, there is creativity in mechanics too, something those who don't play the game utterly fail to acknowledge. In your suggestion you've decided what the outcome of building a ship has to be; what room do you have for making ships that deviate mechanically from yor example? In current starmade you can strap a 600k DPS gatling gun to a 12k mass ship, because ship performance allows a lot of deviation from a generic ship. You can put 70% of your ships mass into armor and it can still be a functional combat ship that's highly cost effective, assuming you're using hull. You're also eliminating design constraints in a game where getting some crazy ship plan to work is a lot of fun, eliminating the restrictions makes doing that trivial and these "interactive" systems youre asking for

A totally selfish line of reasoning, I know. So many ppl have already sunk time and energy into this game. They're used to how the power system works. They don't want it to change because then all their "work" has been wasted. Or maybe it isn't due to wasted work, but just having to deal with the BS of what doesn't seem like an objectively better system.

Hey at least you know its selfish, but dont speak on our behalf. I'll gladly watch all my work go up in flames if it means we get a better game out of it. If heatbox design is the future i wont touch starmade again.

If the power gets changed, PvP and RP styled should be evened out. Then PvP and RP players can intermingle freely without having to worry about getting curb stomped/horribly bored. If it doesn't, change the PvP ships will always have better combat performance than RP ships. PvP and RP players will stay segregated into their own niche groups.

But once you break down what RP and PVP is, this argument takes a super nasty turn:

• RP: Build ships to look a certain way with total disregard for how it functions
• PVP, or more accurately, GAMEPLAY ships are designed to FUNCTION a certain way, with the aesthetics adapted to suit the mechanical design. PVP just happens to be the only gameplay currently in starmade.

What you are constantly missing is this wont bridge the gap between pvp and rp, it will destroy pvp building, because you're eliminating our ability to excell through mechanics, or rather you think you are. In reality this will give gameplay builders an even larger advantage over RPers because its more exploitable.

Rewording your argument it goes like this:

"Building ships while only placing importance on aesthetics and ignoring mechanical building will be just as good as spending hundreds of hours experimenting with ship designs and optimizing them. "

Exact same argument, just without the positive spin.

You will never compare to us because we build warmachines and you build dollhouses. The only way you can is by forcing our warmachines to be dollhouses as well, and at that point we'll find a different game to play because we do not want to make dollhouses.

"This solution would be drastic and would require you to refit power in almost all of your ships. However, in the long run this would still be better as changes in the new system would require a lot less adaption from this point on. So instead of frustrating players with small changes that likely wouldn’t fix the problems to begin with and would require players to refit their ships every time, we decided that it’s better to do one big change to solve the core problems once and for all." -- schema
From here, second paragraph of Introduction: Power System Overhaul Proposal

I dont have anything against the intention of the bit you quoted, it wont improve anything is what our problem with your suggestion is.

 

[Brokengauge]

This is the point where you absolutely fail to explain your case.

First of all, we're asking WHY this change should be made, not what the effects are or how to do them.

Secondly "creativity" is not limited to aesthetics, there is creativity in mechanics too, something those who don't play the game utterly fail to acknowledge. In your suggestion you've decided what the outcome of building a ship has to be; what room do you have for making ships that deviate mechanically from yor example? In current starmade you can strap a 600k DPS gatling gun to a 12k mass ship, because ship performance allows a lot of deviation from a generic ship. You can put 70% of your ships mass into armor and it can still be a functional combat ship that's highly cost effective, assuming you're using hull. You're also eliminating design constraints in a game where getting some crazy ship plan to work is a lot of fun, eliminating the restrictions makes doing that trivial and these "interactive" systems youre asking for



Hey at least you know its selfish, but dont speak on our behalf. I'll gladly watch all my work go up in flames if it means we get a better game out of it. If heatbox design is the future i wont touch starmade again.



But once you break down what RP and PVP is, this argument takes a super nasty turn:

• RP: Build ships to look a certain way with total disregard for how it functions
• PVP, or more accurately, GAMEPLAY ships are designed to FUNCTION a certain way, with the aesthetics adapted to suit the mechanical design. PVP just happens to be the only gameplay currently in starmade.

What you are constantly missing is this wont bridge the gap between pvp and rp, it will destroy pvp building, because you're eliminating our ability to excell through mechanics, or rather you think you are. In reality this will give gameplay builders an even larger advantage over RPers because its more exploitable.

Rewording your argument it goes like this:

"Building ships while only placing importance on aesthetics and ignoring mechanical building will be just as good as spending hundreds of hours experimenting with ship designs and optimizing them. "

Exact same argument, just without the positive spin.

You will never compare to us because we build warmachines and you build dollhouses. The only way you can is by forcing our warmachines to be dollhouses as well, and at that point we'll find a different game to play because we do not want to make dollhouses.



I dont have anything against the intention of the bit you quoted, it wont improve anything is what our problem with your suggestion is.

I guess it does just come down to the detail I like in a doll house then. Most "rp" ships I've seen still have most of their interior space cram packed full of systems with absolutely no regard whatsoever to necessary crew compliment, maintenance areas, logistics support...you know a bunch of stuff that doesn't really do anything lol. I'd like there to be a reason for that. The crew update will go a long way. Hell, probably most of the way. But I like the idea that I have to basically design the systems I'm putting in.

Also, Idk why you think I'm trying to speak on your behalf, do I need to put in a disclaimer or something? This is a forum, and I only speak for myself. That's what all of us here do. I would like to see this type of mechanic put into place, and Idgaf what anybody else wants. Doesn't mean I expect to get my way though, I'm not unreasonable lol.

EDIT
I don't wish to ignore mechanical building. I want each system I put down to have a reason for why it's that size, that shape, and in that location. I don't see this kind of mentality in RP ships, they just stick shit wherever.

 

[Valiant70]

Oh, yeah, specifically shaped systems and exclusion zones really add more creative freedom. In other news, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

I'm going to stop discussing this with you at this point because you have moved from discussion to sarcasm. If you'd like to discuss this further, please state a valid, rational argument instead of throwing out sarcastic comments.

First of all, we're asking WHY this change should be made, not what the effects are or how to do them.

What "WHY" is there for a change other than the effects it will have?

• RP: Build ships to look a certain way with total disregard for how it functions
• PVP, or more accurately, GAMEPLAY ships are designed to FUNCTION a certain way, with the aesthetics adapted to suit the mechanical design. PVP just happens to be the only gameplay currently in starmade.

"Building ships while only placing importance on aesthetics and ignoring mechanical building will be just as good as spending hundreds of hours experimenting with ship designs and optimizing them. "

You are completely misinterpreting everything I am saying and every term I am using. I build war machines. I am constantly frustrated by how hard it is to decorate them to the degree I'd like without compromising their performance.

• RP: Ships have an interior and exterior that makes them feel "real" or "alive" making them potentially suitable for immersed role-play.
• PVP/Mechanics: This ship will rip your face off if you hold your chin wrong. There is nothing impeding its function.

To correct your mistranslation: "After spending hundreds of hours experimenting and optimizing the functional parts of a ship to rip your face off, I would like to add enough decoration to make it look and feel 'real' without impeding its mechanical function, making the war machine potentially suitable for immersed role-play."

Secondly "creativity" is not limited to aesthetics, there is creativity in mechanics too, something those who don't play the game utterly fail to acknowledge.

I wouldn't play this game if I didn't already think that way.

In your suggestion you've decided what the outcome of building a ship has to be; what room do you have for making ships that deviate mechanically from yor example?

Who knows! Different overall shapes for the reactor or different chambers attached to it could have any number of different effects, such as making specific systems more power-efficient at the cost of others, or making the ship harder to detect at the cost of efficiency. Possibilities are endless when you're talking about a whole new system.

In current starmade you can strap a 600k DPS gatling gun to a 12k mass ship, because ship performance allows a lot of deviation from a generic ship. You can put 70% of your ships mass into armor and it can still be a functional combat ship that's highly cost effective, assuming you're using hull.

If that isn't possible after the rework, it was reworked all the wrong way. That's something totally different from the beatbox mechanic.

You're also eliminating design constraints in a game where getting some crazy ship plan to work is a lot of fun, eliminating the restrictions makes doing that trivial and these "interactive" systems youre asking for

... Eliminating them? I wanted to add one. We have next to none now and it's weird.

 

[kulbolen]

I build war machines. I am constantly frustrated by how hard it is to decorate them to the degree I'd like without compromising their performance.

I would like to add enough decoration to make it look and feel 'real' without impeding its mechanical function, making the war machine potentially suitable for immersed role-play."

last time i walked around in a military cruiser, the only decorations on it were the paintings and posters the crew put there for morale. the halls were about 1 starmade block wide. the space shuttle is even more cramped, and it has no weaponry at all.

warmachines arent built for decor, theyre built to take advantage of the mechanics of their environment. you build dollhouses that imitate popular media representations of warmachines. i see nothing wrong with this; i admire lots of these dollhouses... but they are what they are.