Literally just invert the stabilizer distances.

[FlyingDebris]

Title says it all gentlemen, instead of having the "stabilizers" off on the other end of your ship, we can preserve continuity of the vessel and have the power make some sort of sense to players by having the things that are supposed to be stabilizing the reactor well, right up against the reactor.

Because right now, it's gonna be all dumbbell shaped ships and that's not gonna fly particularly well with me.

 

[CyberTao]

I mean, you can only have 1 reactor anyways, so why the hell do you need to spread it out so much.

 

[Napther]

This is mentioned a few times, and I am an Advocate of it.

THis also means that that fancy "Reactor Hull" math malarkey wasnt wasted dev time. We use the Hull to generate a Radius that Stabalizers need to be placed in to add to the reactor. Big ships on the scale of say old 500k mass-ers at 400-600m long, will now be able to place their stabalizers for their old 50m energy a second reacto about 150m away

Tiny ships under 50 mass will tend to not need Stabalisers due to reactor size, depending on the type (Combat VS shuttle only), and the radius will be idk, 3 - 5 blocks from the reactor Hull that stabalisers have 100% effect

small ships 1000 mass and less will have more reactor blocks in them, with large combat reactors allowing a dozen blocks gap from the Hull

Etc Etc

THis 2.0 system scales WHOLLY on "Did you build your ship stupidly long in some BS axis" rather than the more logical "I am free to place my reactor stabalisers wherever I want within reason NEAR to my reactor to Stabalise it"

 

[aceface]

So as I understand correctly, suggestion proposes reactor is most efficient when stabalizers are closest instead of far away?

 

[FlyingDebris]

Yep.

 

[aceface]

Yep.

Oh HELL YES
nightrune Lancake AndyP
please consider this suggestion and its impact on ship builds vs what you have already right now in dev builds

 

[Zoolimar]

So what will be the point of stabilizers then? If multiple reactors could be active per vessel it could have its uses but with only one reactor running at a time stabilizers that must be placed close don't seem to have any point to their existence.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Honestly I'd have been fine with removing current power and changing aux around a little, but that's evidently not overcomplicated enough. The stabilizers I suppose are a good way to affect reactor power output, and to encourage some sort of contiguous design instead of weird strings like what we have now.

 

[Napther]

So what will be the point of stabilizers then? If multiple reactors could be active per vessel it could have its uses but with only one reactor running at a time stabilizers that must be placed close don't seem to have any point to their existence.

WHAT IS THE POINT of them currently then? They are just a stupid annoying block that we NEED to place to get ANYTHING from our reactors

and need to be like 1km away on larger builds. Their purpose is to get in the way of building any ship that isnt a stretched turd

 

[Zoolimar]

The stabilizers I suppose are a good way to affect reactor power output, and to encourage some sort of contiguous design instead of weird strings like what we have now.

You could just give reactors a bonus to energy generation depending on how tightly their blocks are packed. Say a full cube gives 25%-100% more energy than a line with the same block count. Done.

 

[Lancake]

The current meta has always been to fill most of your ship with systems, as empty space would be a waste if it could hold more systems (or armor).

We moved away from that with this power system, as it's impossible to get a good oversight what is in your ship and where all of the groups are if it's filled to the brim. Adjusting the end result of your systems is also a frustrating experience as you need to find a specific system (which could be placed in multiple locations, in different amounts) and either removing them, or replacing them with other systems till you find the proper balance.

The stabilizers allow us to up the regeneration per block for reactors without allowing people to fill their ship with as much power and power consuming systems it can fit.
Now you're limited by the dimensions of your ship and this would define the "maximum" regeneration of a given ship. Allowing us to define that, if a ship has all of its systems inside, you can only use 20% or so of its volume dedicated to systems before running into power problems.

---

The issue here is that you are allowed to put stabilizers far, far away, giving you much more regeneration than intended for. Secondary issue is that this stabilizer system encourages people to put them as far as possible, which will push people to build them outside of their ship.

So far, I haven't seen a suggestion that would limit the amount of systems put down on a ship to a X% of its volume (before running into power problems). We have been working on finding solutions to discourage this build style of splitting up your ship's 2 major power components and have yet to reach a full conclusion.


As for OP's suggestion, inverting the stabilizer distance curve, meaning you need to put them as close together to reactor group, would bring us back to the old system where you're encouraged to fully fill your ship with power + stabilizers and its power consuming systems.

 

[FlyingDebris]

The current meta has always been to fill most of your ship with systems, as empty space would be a waste if it could hold more systems (or armor).

We moved away from that with this power system, as it's impossible to get a good oversight what is in your ship and where all of the groups are if it's filled to the brim. Adjusting the end result of your systems is also a frustrating experience as you need to find a specific system (which could be placed in multiple locations, in different amounts) and either removing them, or replacing them with other systems till you find the proper balance.

The stabilizers allow us to up the regeneration per block for reactors without allowing people to fill their ship with as much power and power consuming systems it can fit.
Now you're limited by the dimensions of your ship and this would define the "maximum" regeneration of a given ship. Allowing us to define that, if a ship has all of its systems inside, you can only use 20% or so of its volume dedicated to systems before running into power problems.

---

The issue here is that you are allowed to put stabilizers far, far away, giving you much more regeneration than intended for. Secondary issue is that this stabilizer system encourages people to put them as far as possible, which will push people to build them outside of their ship.

So far, I haven't seen a suggestion that would limit the amount of systems put down on a ship to a X% of its volume (before running into power problems). We have been working on finding solutions to discourage this build style of splitting up your ship's 2 major power components and have yet to reach a full conclusion.


As for OP's suggestion, inverting the stabilizer distance curve, meaning you need to put them as close together to reactor group, would bring us back to the old system where you're encouraged to fully fill your ship with power + stabilizers and its power consuming systems.

Has Schine considered that, well, perhaps it's a good idea to fill most of the ship with blocks?

 

[Napther]

What are we going to fill that space with???

Grass blocks?

Dolom?

CACTUS? FLOWERS?

Because thats what you are essentially doeing by saying " We want less blocks inside a ship. You have entirely forsaken armour as a defence. Its just not viable at all for a whole multitude of reasons. Filling the voids in a ship with basic hull is barely better to just flooding it with waste block.

 

[aceface]

you could have it so you must fill it with systems, but theres core points of the reactor, eg the reactor blocks that are few, so they must be clumped together and are a specific target on scanners. i really do not like how the new system encourages to not fill in systems and encourages very awkward looking ships. eg you could make it so you need lots of stabilizers so they basically act as a filler block.

 

[Lancake]

Has Schine considered that, well, perhaps it's a good idea to fill most of the ship with blocks?

Yes, we've considered that and we did not agree with that notion. It's why the new system is like it is and that's what I explained in the post you've quoted. Is my post confusing, does it miss crucial information?


As for the filled ships not being ideal, perhaps an example will help.
If I gave you a 500 000 block ship that's fully filled with systems and tell you to give me more weapons, less shields and more thrust.
Would you be able to achieve said values without making a mess of the ship? Or would you first empty the ship entirely and rebuilt it from scratch?

If the latter is your answer in all cases, then filled ships are not easy at all to tweak/overhaul.
[doublepost=1507935526,1507935371][/doublepost]

What are we going to fill that space with???

Grass blocks?

Dolom?

CACTUS? FLOWERS?

Because thats what you are essentially doeing by saying " We want less blocks inside a ship. You have entirely forsaken armour as a defence. Its just not viable at all for a whole multitude of reasons. Filling the voids in a ship with basic hull is barely better to just flooding it with waste block.

Something that does not influence multiple systems. A simple basic hull would suffice as it would not influence your mass by much and give you some extra projectile resistance. You can simply un-fill that specific type to access all of your systems again.

I would appreciate a less condescending tone, as I'm simply trying to provide information and get constructive feedback in return if my findings are wrong or justified, thank you.

 

[Calhoun]

Yes, we've considered that and we did not agree with that notion. It's why the new system is like it is and that's what I explained in the post you've quoted. Is my post confusing, does it miss crucial information?


As for the filled ships not being ideal, perhaps an example will help.
If I gave you a 500 000 block ship that's fully filled with systems and tell you to give me more weapons, less shields and more thrust.
Would you be able to achieve said values without making a mess of the ship? Or would you first empty the ship entirely and rebuilt it from scratch?

If the latter is your answer in all cases, then filled ships are not easy at all to tweak/overhaul.
[doublepost=1507935526,1507935371][/doublepost]
Something that does not influence multiple systems. A simple basic hull would suffice as it would not influence your mass by much and give you some extra projectile resistance. You can simply un-fill that specific type to access all of your systems again.

I would appreciate a less condescending tone, as I'm simply trying to provide information and get constructive feedback in return if my findings are wrong or justified, thank you.

So what, you're trying to make it easier for us? Because I don't remember anyone saying "wow it's a real pain to refit ships, we should throw out the current power system"

 

[FlyingDebris]

I'll repost something I said in general chat a while back on the topic of momentary inconvenience:

"The blueprint update has proven that adding a momentary inconvenience will in no way stop players from making minmaxed ships. By trying to create a system where the effort required to create a ship is supposed to be the limiting factor, it will always fail miserably. You CANNOT expect players to not do something if it is still theoretically possible in the slightest.

Just because you made it more difficult does not mean that people will stop doing it. Hell, ship sizes actually went up after buy with credits went away."

 

[aceface]

Napther be nice, dont want to scare off schine. this is important stuff!
[doublepost=1507935792,1507935727][/doublepost]

Just because you made it more difficult does not mean that people will stop doing it. Hell, ship sizes actually went up after buy with credits went away."

yup, 1 mil mass ships were unheard of back in the day. only those few with the stamina to build them on server actually had them.

 

[Lancake]

So what, you're trying to make it easier for us?

Yes.

In addition, the chamber system can exist because of it or else it would be quite hard and a frustrating experience to adjust/add/remove chambers in a ship that's already quite filled.

 

[Napther]

yup, 1 mil mass ships were unheard of back in the day. only those few with the stamina to build them on server actually had them.

Or the old cheat-Engine exploit to change build_mode_area to whatever number you want on a client and it transferred as, say, 50x50x50 cubes placed on the server. Back when 10 was the hard cap.