Literally just invert the stabilizer distances.

[Groovrider]

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.

OK

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.

OK

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.

OK, mostly.
---

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.

No. Speaking for myself, I do not want to do this. It's vulnerable. It makes turning bad. Missiles will find it eventually and any shields are temporary, no matter how powerful. Thing is I may not have to. Combat wise I am no longer carrying a huge capacitor. I am lighter and I seem to get more bang for my buck that I did with the old system but it's early days.

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.

I'm a bit confused about this but If we want stabilizers close by then the heat field needs to smaller but with a steeper curve and granularity. This would allow us to "dodge" the field better with geometry rather than just distance.


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.

I don't feel that the new system discourages that. My bricks will still be bricks (I like bricks) but with the power at the ends and systems in the middle.

edit: hmm I may be a bit late...

 

[Ithirahad]

BTW, if you guys want systems to be more than a matter of filling up ships, you'll need the mechanics to back it up. Shields would need things like localized projectors, weapons could use a (reasonable) heat mechanic (NOT boxes; distance from convex hull works as long as the normal heat radius is pretty small), power distribution could use conduits, reactor construction itself could be more complex, and most of all we need the crew system. A weird forced mechanic to try and force hulls to be larger than what they need to contain is no substitute for this kind of thing.

 

[Benevolent27]

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.

Thank you for engaging the community in polite conversation. Sorry for the players that are getting a bit emotional about this. Just keep in mind that them caring about the outcome is a good thing.

So, firstly, I should say that I am in the camp of people who do not like the distance requirement because it introduces artificial barriers that will limit ship builds by forcing 2 part structures for efficient ships.

So my plan for LvD is to remove the distance requirement entirely, increase the amount of free stabilizer blocks, and then increase the cost of stabilizers. The effect will be that players can put their power reactors and stabilizers in whatever shape they would like, while introducing diminishing returns on investment cost.

Does it force players to have vast, empty portions in their ship, thus providing build area for RP builds? No, not at all and who cares. Even RP builders are not happy with the forced stabilizer distance because it forces them to build their ship with certain dimensions and forces them to have large single-reactor groups to sufficiently power their ships.

So, for what I propose, I could really use is a way to set a log equation to the power curve, allowing for additional diminishing returns past certain reactor sizes. Not as harsh as a soft-cap, but not linear either. My entire goal here is to have diminishing returns on power reactor size so that there are natural reasons not to build as large as one can.

But, all this being said, I really think that decentralizing power is the way to go. Having multiple power reactors which power individual sets of weapons, thrusters, ect. These reactors also must be connected to the system they power with wires. Break the connection and power cuts out to those systems. As for the UI, you have a menu showing all your power reactor systems and you can set one as your "main reactor", showing the power on the UI where power displays now. By default, the first reactor built is set to the main reactor. You could also open up a power UI where you basically have several bars going up and down as power is used for all reactors.

This would also open up the possibility of multiple reactor types that have different pros and cons. For example, some might be more efficient in smaller groups, while others are most efficient in large groups but have a chance to explode when hit. The default reactor type might be called a " basic reactor."

But in any case, I think if the devs focused less on controlling how people build and more on creating a game engine that allows variability in power setups across different servers, this would essentially create the testbed that Schine needs to find what players commonly enjoy the most.

Well, I think I've written enough for now. Let me know your thoughts here.
[doublepost=1507950271,1507949198][/doublepost]Oh, I feel I should mention here that the chamber system is great in some ways. Essentially chambers are the same thing as computers, except they are linked to the power core rather than the ship core. These chambers are then configurable, and not only that, they will be moddable because they use structured upgrade paths.

But I do have some suggestions here as well. I don't like the way the paths terminate. Where it's one path only. I'd like to see instead where each chamber had it's own set of tech points based on the size of the chamber, in relation to the size of the ship. For example, a chamber may require 40 blocks on a 1k block ship to have 1 upgrade or 200 to have a max of 5 upgrades. These values would be different depending on the type of chamber.

You could have more than 1 chamber. For example, someone may have more than one scanner type and then unlocks all scanning ability. But their ship would essentially be unable to power weapons or other systems because it would have to be 80% made out of scanner chambers to accomplish this. Also each chamber would have it's own scanner that has the properties of the upgrades. I would then suggest allowing players to rename their scanners so they can tell which is which.

For defensive, offensive, and other chambers, it would work the same. There would be a minimum size needed + additional chamber blocks for each additional upgrade. Each chamber may also have some branches of upgrades that must be decided. For example, there could be 3 defensive paths with branches. Players could upgrade the base branches and then 3 down one branch. Or they might fully upgrade 1 branch. Or perhaps they devote a large portion of their systems to defense and have multiple chambers where everything has been unlocked for the defensive chambers. But they will have had to build each chamber to that minimum size for their ship and it would be massive.

In addition, I think chambers should stop working if they suffer a certain amount of damage. They may also only work intermittently when taking moderate damage.

Well, I gotta get to work. Thoughts are welcome.

 

[Peashooter26]

Yeah I agree with FlyingDebris here, it would make much more sense to have the stabilizers closer to the reactor.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Well shit, thanks Lancake! I'm excited to test the devbuild.

 

[Dire Venom]

I'll make a config, doing what OP suggests. I'll just remove the stabilizer distance efficiency entirely, or do invert it, it does the same thing really in reality so shouldn't matter too much.

I'll make sure that the majority of the ships have a small reactor + small chambers in comparison to other systems on the ship, which should encompass its entire volume.
Something like this ratio for its volume usage:
- 8-10% Reactor related blocks, 10% thrusters, 20% weapons, 60% shields
I estimate 10-20% of the shields ratio can be redirected to be heavy armor.
This ratio is obviously not fixed as small ships simply do not have enough free volume to keep to this ratio.

I'll upload the config in a separate thread and give you the needed information for you to test it out in the latest dev build.

Thank you for coming up with this!
Talking ratios does make a lot of sense, and I'tll be intersting seeing what can be done.
Ratios like that would more focus systems more while requiering large ammounts of space for Shields, or Potientialy making Armour tanks a bit more viable. There would still be pleanty of room for interiors if desired without much system loss.

Just some further thougths (ratios havn't been decided of course), about what would happen if say a player dedicated 20% to reactors and 40% to weapons. That would likely result in glass cannon builds without much shielding but high firepower.
Seems like nerfing shield capacity per block, reducing a number of blocks mass or buffing thrust per block would be on the table.

Thus you end up with some systems being concentrated and power intensive, and others being more filler but having low mass and return per block.

 

[Jojomo]

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."

I think though it might be a bit more accurate to say that "inconvenience won't stop SOME players from making minmaxed ships", and "You cannot expect SOME players to not do something if it's still possible".

There are players who will avoid some activities, and even the game itself, if the cost (time) to benefit (fun, or whatever) ratio doesn't feel good enough - probably because they're people without much free time (I'm one).

Apparently the power update will mean minmaxing will be more convenient than currently (physically, i.e. time spent clicking), which sounds pretty good to me

EDIT:

I'll make a config, doing what OP suggests. I'll just remove the stabilizer distance efficiency entirely, or do invert it, it does the same thing really in reality so shouldn't matter too much.

Sounds boring? One less variable to consider in design (stabiliser distance)...
And doomcubes will again be the ideal shape, no?

 

[Lancake]

Altered reactor config

 

[IKindaCrashAlot]

It seems like this has already been resolved but I just wanted to add my two cents in to the situation because I haven't heard anyone else bring up this point yet. The reason starmade is such a special game is because I can build whatever I want. Once you limit player's build capabilities to a certain design than the game doesn't become special anymore. Everyone in this community has been sticking around (for the most part) because we know this game is different than the others, and as I said earlier what makes this game special is being able to build wherever your imagination leads you. Take away the freedom to build what anyone pleases and the game loses what it has that other games don't.

 

[Nosajimiki]

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.

Hi Lancake, while I respect your intentions here, I think there are more factors at play than you may be aware. I'm not sure if you have read this thread or not, but one of the points it makes is that encouraging this empty space is a major concern from a performance standpoint.

I'm not really sure how often you've mess with 300k+ mass builds, but the more exposed surface areas you put in a ship, the worse the lag becomes when you look at it, and an empty interior that you can't even see still gets processed causing lag. Big ships just don't function well with inner spaces. For this reason, Titan builders have a very strong practical reason for filing a ship if at all possible, because that visual lag can make just looking at your ship to be able to redesign it take several times as long if it is full of holes.

Case-and-point, my 300k Nidhog MK-1 & 2 series was designed to have a large and detailed set of hanger bays that could hold ~40 drones. Even empty of drones it caused tons of lag to look at. It was so bad I gave up on it as a carrier and filled 80% of it's interior spaces with system blocks and added 6 large turrets and 4 AMS turrets to cover what was once flight decks. Much to my surprise, the 500k "filled" variant caused less lag than the much lighter one with a swiss cheezed interior.

Another reason players do Full-Fills is armor weight. Armor is heavy, so anything an experienced player can do to minimise external surface area, the more he can layer on that armor.

Lastly, the current game mechanics do not actually prevent people who want to use your proposed idea of spaced systems from doing so. The Seraph by [edit] Nastral[/edit] for example is a very popular PvP 250k warship that does space its systems, but it has very light armor so it's restricted so much by outer dimensions as other ships.

 

[Benevolent27]

Hi Lancake, while I respect your intentions here, I think there are more factors at play than you may be aware. I'm not sure if you have read this thread or not, but one of the points it makes is that encouraging this empty space is a major concern from a performance standpoint.

I'm not really sure how often you've mess with 300k+ mass builds, but the more exposed surface areas you put in a ship, the worse the lag becomes when you look at it, and an empty interior that you can't even see still gets processed causing lag. Big ships just don't function well with inner spaces. For this reason, Titan builders have a very strong practical reason for filing a ship if at all possible, because that visual lag can make just looking at your ship to be able to redesign it take several times as long if it is full of holes.

Case-and-point, my 300k Nidhog MK-1 & 2 series was designed to have a large and detailed set of hanger bays that could hold ~40 drones. Even empty of drones it caused tons of lag to look at. It was so bad I gave up on it as a carrier and filled 80% of it's interior spaces with system blocks and added 6 large turrets and 4 AMS turrets to cover what was once flight decks. Much to my surprise, the 500k "filled" variant caused less lag than the much lighter one with a swiss cheezed interior.

Another reason players do Full-Fills is armor weight. Armor is heavy, so anything an experienced player can do to minimise external surface area, the more he can layer on that armor.

Lastly, the current game mechanics do not actually prevent people who want to use your proposed idea of spaced systems from doing so. The Seraph by Benevolent for example is a very popular PvP 250k warship that does space its systems, but it has very light armor so it's restricted so much by outer dimensions as other ships.

*NaStral is the author of the kiosk ships on LvD. I'm the guy that created the kiosk and wrapper.

My contraptions include the Harvester Of Souls and The Shredder. I generally stay away from building anything larger than 100k, because my interest is not in dominating the server, but rather having interesting combat. I do enjoy killing people 200k+ ships though. >:D

 

[lupoCani]

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

I'd say it's not.

Anyone experienced has grown used to it, of course, but when I thought back, I realized something interesting. The "fill your ship with blocks" paradigm was the first thing in Starmade that ever annoyed me.

I was a new player, once. It was just after the yogswarm, I suspect the friend who introduced me to the game was a yogswarmer themselves. They, one or two others, and eventually myself, played on a small private server. I had been ferried to our base, a station near a planet-plate, and gotten to work on my first ship. I built a simple hull, installed power, shields and eventually even got weapons to work, and I had my vessel.

Only, there were a lot of pirates, and I had to seriously fight them. And I realized, if I just put a couple of more Antimatter Cannons in that corner, why, I could get a decent boost in firepower. And actually, I could squeeze in some more shield blocks there, too. And more power. And cannons, and shields, and eventually my ship was a nearly-solid blob of systems, with a tunnel to the core and a cockpit under the bow.

"If I want to seriously try to accomplish anything," I thought, "why, I have to actively fill out as mush space as possible. How annoying, I liked the more spacious design."

I adapted, built another couple of ships, and soon I was filling my ships up as well as anyone, with a minimum of emptiness for catwalks and not going completely mad when trying to retrofit. But, being forced into this paradigm was my first proper grievance with the game. If something is finally done to make that go away, why, I'm not complaining.

Of course, that's far from the only point of debate. Does this way of doing it over-incentivize linear ships? Does it provide too little complexity for more experienced builders? There are legitimate grievances, but I certainly don't think the goal is anything less than sound.

 

[aceface]

The current meta has always been to fill most of your ship with systems,

No filling needed haha:
This is the kind of stuff that will happen but worse with the new power update. Looks so silly, very hard to hit and is also really bad for performance since so many surfaces are being rendered, BUT - super effective.

 

[Benevolent27]

No filling needed haha:
This is the kind of stuff that will happen but worse with the new power update. Looks so silly, very hard to hit and is also really bad for performance since so many surfaces are being rendered, BUT - super effective.

I first found the 99% space ship build a while back, but only used it once for a competition where I wrecked my enemies. When missiles or cannons can only kill a few blocks at a time, boy does it increase the survivability of a ship.

One way around this kind of ship building being the overpowered "meta" build is to introduce breakway and structural integrity into the game. If there are disconnected blocks on a ship, then they literally break off and float away, becoming asteroid-like entities. All blocks would need to be physically connected to the core in some way. I imagine this would be extremely difficult to implement though and also extremely laggy as sections of ship broke off. Particularly if sections of a ship INSIDE of the main ship start breaking off and bouncing around inside.

Another way to combat this kind of ship building is to have specific rulesets regarding reactor types. For example, a nuclear power reactor may require it to be completely surrounded by reactor shielding blocks or it starts to slowly overheat. The reactor shielding blocks might be somewhat expensive as well. Trying to create some long lines of nuclear power reactors would dramatically increase the cost to build the same size reactor as someone else who builds a square (and also to keep it stable). But a square reactor would also be more vulnerable to damage since the blocks are more compacted. There might also be further diminishing returns for reactors with strange dimensions, where a square is the most efficient setup, having a slight dimensional bonus. (But it would NOT be nearly as pronounced as reactors have been) For example, the reactor might be 20% more efficient when a perfect square. When only in a straight line, it gets 0% for it's boost. Another reactor type might be most efficient when having the largest surface area, such as a solar array. But the power output would also be determined by the distance of the ship from the nearest star(s), the type of star, and the direction the block is receiving light. This reactor type might be ideal to coat a base in that is placed between near a set of stars in a binary star system.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Another possibly more practical idea is to make a ship's size to damage coefficient based on volume instead of mass; so, if you make a 2km x 2km x 2km spaghetti monster, it will effectively become so fragile that AMS style waffles will be able to tear them to pieces. While this may seem to punish RP builds for not being bricks, a well designed RP ship actual uses their RP areas as a way to create spaced armor/obliterative areas to reduce damage. The big disadvantage of RP builds is that they often put their RP area inside of their systems instead of outside. I've personally seen RP ships that put them on the outside have drastically improved survivability; so, while the debate has been about not "further" devaluing RP builds, it should be about how people should learn to make their RP builds with PvP practicality in mind if they want it to survive in pvp.