Issues with the 2.0 Power System (Regarding the Goals of the New System)

[Scypio]

True, but people will presumably place everything other than reactors and stabilisers between them, with not much reason to bunch them up, so I'd guess in practice we will see volume increases.

Presuming doesn't mean that it will be the case of everyone.

 

[Az14el]

The presumption that high density design is even preferable to low density is dangerous at best (and one of the presumptions schine seems to be using in systems 2.0 design), not like we've not been preaching that since dev came out, but still seems like they're going to waste a lot of time having to redo this yet again down the line.

People need to think outside the box of solid aesthetics based builds & consider what's actually possible in the game if they want to actually balance it

 

[apelsinsaft]

I still hold the opinion that the game would have been better off with a much simplified system, where the game determines how many power blocks you're allowed (or how many of your power blocks will be active) depending on how big your ship is, in terms of volume, and there is no need for any additional thinking.

Note that it wouldn't be the volume in terms of how many total blocks: it would be volume in terms of the volume the ship can contain (in other words, how easy it is to hit with gunfire). If its hard to make a computer figure out the volume with some kind of 3D volume determining algorithm(the ship could contain holes that would break such an algorithm), the game could look at your ship from every direction, paint a silhouette for each direction (13 total silhouettes, for each edge, corner and face of a cube divided by two), and determine your "volume" from the total surface area of each silhouette.

 

[Madman198237]

Or we could skip the ridiculous math and COMPLETE brainlessness of offloading the power-system-building to the computer, and allow people to customize ships instead of giving them ridiculous and illogical hard limits on power.

Also, I was talking "empty internal volume" not "total volume".

 

[apelsinsaft]

allow people to customize ships instead of giving them ridiculous and illogical hard limits on power.

How? What's your suggestion? What's wrong and illogical with limiting the power of a ship?

 

[Madman198237]

You're suggesting that no ship can EVER have more power than its size would normally indicate.

That's RIDICULOUS, this is a SANDBOX, you need FREEDOM of design, even if it's not necessarily practical.

 

[Panpiper]

What's wrong and illogical with limiting the power of a ship?

Everything in the build system is a trade off, as it should be. The amount of armor you have is a trade off with thrust and turn rate, which is a trade off with how much shields you can put in in lieu of thrusters, etc., etc.. Anything you put in a ship is a trade off with everything else you 'could' put in a ship. Everything that is, according to you (and the current system) except power. Power has no trade off. The only decision to make regarding power is how far away you shall define your two end points, how big your ship will be. That is a needless restriction. That is an irrational restriction that follows no real world logic. And that is an EXTREME let down for people who enjoy build systems and creativity.

 

[apelsinsaft]

You're suggesting that no ship can EVER have more power than its size would normally indicate.

That's RIDICULOUS, this is a SANDBOX, you need FREEDOM of design, even if it's not necessarily practical.

The only decision to make regarding power is how far away you shall define your two end points, how big your ship will be. That is a needless restriction. That is an irrational restriction that follows no real world logic. And that is an EXTREME let down for people who enjoy build systems and creativity.

Just like you are pointing out, the power system is inherently something that (in its old iteration) promotes total freedom of design. That's a valid standpoint, but i was under the impression that the developers wanted the game to be less of a chore. The freedom in this case comes at the cost of time. Many of the complaints we've been hearing all these years stem from how you need to place thousands, maybe millions of blocks to fill some ships because leaving it empty isn't an option. There's two camps here: those who have excess time to spend on making a ship that fulfills a specific function first and foremost, and those who have time only to create the exterior and want to have it functional ASAP to save effort and maybe have more fun.

Which camp is more hurt by either option, limiting or not limiting the size of systems? In my opinion, it's the players in the middle of the bell curve, who don't give a crap about all this and just want a fun and addicting game experience. And i think the current(old) system hurts that the most.

It comes down to a number of factors. How well is it presented to the player what the limits are? How hard does it limit the player, does it prevent them from placing the blocks or only put a fast scaling soft limit on the effect of the blocks? Are the limits logical (bigger ship means bigger profile means easier target means more power to offset) or not? (HURR CHANDELIERS AND CALTROPS OR BUST)

 

[GnomeKing]

"The only decision to make regarding power is how far away you shall define your two end points, how big your ship will be."

I share that general view; But (to play devils advocate) isn't 2.0 intended to work more by the decisions taken in how that power gets used, and where variance in actual power draw of systems can be achieved through reactor and weapon chambers, and respective buffs/upgrade levels ?

 

[Panpiper]

I would argue that there is essentially no difference in simplicity between deciding how big your power plant shall be and deciding how big your ship will be. The degree of simplicity gained by forcing power output to be dependant on ship size is virtually insignificant, but it comes at a HUGE cost to player choice, design flexibility and for many of us, fun.

 

[Dire Venom]

The freedom in this case comes at the cost of time. Many of the complaints we've been hearing all these years stem from how you need to place thousands, maybe millions of blocks to fill some ships because leaving it empty isn't an option. There's two camps here: those who have excess time to spend on making a ship that fulfills a specific function first and foremost, and those who have time only to create the exterior and want to have it functional ASAP to save effort and maybe have more fun.

Intersting assesment. I would think most players would not be spending their time making million+ block ships anyway.
I've found the most time intensive part of making a ship is actualy decorating the interior and exterior. Placing lines and 50x50x50 squares of blocks in one go makes constructing large ammounts of systems trivial. You can easily fill any ship with blocks pretty easiliy, no matter the size. Now actualy making it look good, or getting a higher effeciencey/damage mitigation with those systems still takes more time, but no where as long as doing the hull does.

 

[Az14el]

leaving it empty isn't an option.

Flat out wrong, and this poor assumption is a huge part of systems 2.0 balancing and why it's fundamentally broken, empty space weighs nothing & only helps ships reduce & take damage in a more controlled manner, efficient use of spacing is part of what makes metaships so strong. The fact that it can provide optimal space for efficient power under both current & dev systems is a handy side effect to an already quite overpowered archetype, they're essentially just buffing that even further relative to actual aesthetic based "ship looking" ships by attempting to scapegoat high volume;surface ratio vessels.

 

[Dire Venom]

I fail to see how having empty space adds anything beyound less framerate.
If I have empty space I should beable to do something with it, such as more shieling or a lavish crew interior lol.

 

[Az14el]

I fail to see how having empty space adds anything beyound less framerate.
If I have empty space I should beable to do something with it, such as more shieling or a lavish crew interior lol.

Mass increase doesn't implicitly empower a ship relative to that mass, considering thrust mechanics it actually makes them weaker in general. On top that those shields can go literally anywhere, they can be 5kms above the ship in their own little self contained unit for all it matters, and for defensive purposes it really may as well be to limit both penetration & splash damage mechanics by simply not having the blocks all in a discrete little unit to be destroyed.

 

[Dire Venom]

Mass increase doesn't implicitly empower a ship relative to that mass, considering thrust mechanics it actually makes them weaker in general. On top that those shields can go literally anywhere, they can be 5kms above the ship in their own little self contained unit for all it matters, and for defensive purposes it really may as well be to limit both penetration & splash damage mechanics by simply not having the blocks all in a discrete little unit to be destroyed.

Intersting point. That being said I really hope some fix can be found for disconected ships like that, I don't see them being healthy for the game at all XD

 

[Jojomo]

Power has no trade off.

More power means a larger reactor which means: a larger ship, a heavier ship, increased vulnerability (reactor is a larger target that becomes more "expensive" to protect).

Which decisions have been lost? (I'm a big fan of having to make decisions and compromises too...)

 

[Az14el]

So I'll build a heavily spread out & mostly x or y alligned vessel to minimize both the impact of mass & how much mass I "need" to add, as per usual, resulting in a more durable & higher throughput vessel for it's actual mass (and therefore more bang for my blocks) while maintaining turn rate.

I'm perfectly aware that this sounds counterintuitive even to relatively experienced people, but that's seriously just being unimaginative & failing to experiment with the game & what it actually does allow design wise