Literally just invert the stabilizer distances.

[FlyingDebris]

"We don't care if it makes building easier if it fucks everything else up"
-A large portion of the Starmade community, addressed to Schine

 

[Calhoun]

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.

Well thanks but no thanks

 

[Tunk]

Retrofitting and refitting is something ship engineers expect to be slightly painful, but if you have prior knowledge of the ship (or even gasp built it) then its not really a issue.
Its actually a giant non issue unless a system is dramatically changed in function (eg power update).

Find and replace and system highlighting has actually made refitting far easier, hell if I were to perform some refits I used to do with the new tools instead of 2 days to refit a 250k mass ship it would have taken about 3 hours.

Quite literally the first step of a LARGE refit is find and replace the filler blocks (shields, power, hull, whatever) with nothing so forcing us to fill our ships with nothing is literally taking stuff away from us for virtually zero benefit.

 

[MeRobo]

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.

I don't see a problem with leaving 1 block holes for the chamber connections in a stabilizer layer around a reactor (potential scenario with this suggestion in place).

 

[Ithirahad]

The problem with refitting ships, for me, was the lack of tools... With the new(ish) advanced build toolset I'm honestly happy with the current difficulty of ship refitting. I DO NOT like the way that current reactors work, but that doesn't have much to do with filling or not filling ships.

I would, in fact, like to see systems that consist of more than just spamming blocks, but that would be something more like From the Depths. Not just some attempt to create space in ships artificially, which people will inevitably just circumvent anyway and create ugly monstrosities.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Ith speaks the truth.

 

[Tunk]

I agree with Ith,
I would have liked to see more shape/geometry based blocks.

EG jamming/cloak blocks requiring rings, efficiency based on size relative to ship dimensions.

But instead now we've been dumbed down to literally placing system blobs.

 

[Lancake]

I would, in fact, like to see systems that consist of more than just spamming blocks, but that would be something more like From the Depths. Not just some attempt to create space in ships artificially, which people will inevitably just circumvent anyway and create ugly monstrosities.

Maybe that's why right now it still seems manageable for you? Because the majority of our systems are simply calculating a value based on "block count" or "block count in a single group" which is as simple as it can get. Moving away from that (such as the reactor + chamber system) would make it an entirely different matter as then the end result is based on "block count in single group" connected to multiple "block count in single group" which in turn is also connected to ...

It shouldn't be too hard for me to make a dev build config so you could experience what the chamber would system would be like if it is was still based on fully utilizing your ship's volume for systems.

 

[Calhoun]

Maybe that's why right now it still seems manageable for you? Because the majority of our systems are simply calculating a value based on "block count" or "block count in a single group" which is as simple as it can get. Moving away from that (such as the reactor + chamber system) would make it an entirely different matter as then the end result is based on "block count in single group" connected to multiple "block count in single group" which in turn is also connected to ...

It shouldn't be too hard for me to make a dev build config so you could experience what the chamber would system would be like if it is was still based on fully utilizing your ship's volume for systems.

 

[Ithirahad]

Maybe that's why right now it still seems manageable for you? Because the majority of our systems are simply calculating a value based on "block count" or "block count in a single group" which is as simple as it can get. Moving away from that (such as the reactor + chamber system) would make it an entirely different matter as then the end result is based on "block count in single group" connected to multiple "block count in single group" which in turn is also connected to ...

It shouldn't be too hard for me to make a dev build config so you could experience what the chamber would system would be like if it is was still based on fully utilizing your ship's volume for systems.

I already know what that's like. Basically, build power (until I have as much power as I'll need) and chambers, then build everything else. Not really the point.

 

[Lancake]

I already know what that's like. Basically, build power (until I have as much power as I'll need) and chambers, then build everything else. Not really the point.

Your point was that the extra build tools (and info) helps overhauling ships and that you're happy with the current process of overhauling ships.

Nothing is ideal though, which is why I'm wondering if you will still have the same perception of "this is fine" when we go from a less complex power system to a more complex one that involves more than just counting blocks. As you pointed out " I DO NOT like the way that current reactors work, but that doesn't have much to do with filling or not filling ships."

Hence my own point of "Maybe that's why right now it still seems manageable for you?" as adding more complexity to the power system could make it so much worse and no build tool would help with that. I guess you missed my point then too?

---

Huh, one way of ending a discussion. At least we got a page far!

 

[FlyingDebris]

This was an attempt to compromise with Schine on the godawful power mechanic that's being shoved down our throats, Lancake. In return, we've gotten Schine members attempting to lecture us on the game that 99% of them have not actually played for years.

I've been quiet about this whole issue so far aside from building things which prove full well that it's a broken system (14 billion damage on a 200k mass ship, for example) but at this point it's gotten to the point where I feel as if I don't actively step in we're going to receive yet another half-assed system that was given plenty of comments and suggestions from a wide range of sources both experienced and inexperienced in the game, only for them to be completely disregarded in favor of the devs' private ideal. Schine is proving itself to be so far disconnected from the reality of the game they built and it's sinking us further and further into a hole.

In short;

LISTEN TO YOUR PLAYERBASE, WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE YOUR GAME BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT IT.

 

[GDPR 302420]

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.

>Implying that filling an entire ship to brim with system blocks is a problem

Oh save me the lecture on a game that I and most of the community have played more then the combined Schine dev team.

Having to deal with every hull you build for 2.0 being useless because they cannot be worked due to geometrical limitations AND having to deal with the bullshit spacing requirements for stabalisers is just as """"frustrating"""" as having to refit a ship filled to the brim with system blocks.

We all know you just want people to build interiors, you even proposed a block in the old proposal specificly for interiors.

Listen to your community, they play this game more then you do. If you think that the community stance (which from the ratings and responses seem to be unanimously in favor of fixing the bullshit that is stabilisers) is """"wrong"""" in some way, then this game will never see the light of success, no ifs or buts about it.

You say that its "less frustrating" and "easier" to use then system blocks, but its clear from the responses here that the community unanimously disagrees with you.


In short, listen to your community, they play this game more then you do and know what they enjoy more then you do.

 

[The Judge]

The blueprint update has proven that adding a momentary inconvenience will in no way stop players from making minmaxed ships.

Well I mean all that really did was shrink the playerbase.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Well I mean all that really did was shrink the playerbase.

That's another part of the point.

 

[The Judge]

I hate to shit on Schine but fuck it.

I've said (typed?) this before and I'll do it again.

There's a pretty damn good chance that many of the members advocating for inverted stabilizers have far more experience with interacting with the community (eg. being on Public Servers that are not affiliated with Schine), and PvP Balancing. Perhaps they should be listened to more than they currently are? The Ratings in the Thread speak for themselves.

 

[StormWing0]

I'm looking at this new system and scratching my head as to how it's better. The main issue with refitting ships is not the amount of blocks we have or where they are placed, or the fact the ship's remaining space is totally filled, it's the lack of the right tools to refit a ship or build it correctly for that matter that is the issue.

Maybe improve the block editing tools to make it so we can custom build new blocks to show off our system ideas? Let us fight it out over who's mods for the game are best and pick the best one that we all agree on for the defaults?

That said this new system renders all ships useless that aren't the size of tacks. >.> There are a number of better ways to build a power system and this one is so low on the list it isn't going to fly very far.

Also if you want us to have more open space to use for RP stuff like crew quarters than give us said things to make them already and we'll use the space with flood fill for those.

 

[Dire Venom]

Thank you Lancake for listening to our feedback! Even if players disagree, It's really valuable and appreciated that you'll sit here with us and share your thoughts.

I'm certiantly open to new forms of building.
Personaly (and especialy with the new build tools) I havn't found, nor have really ever found re-fitting ships an issue.
To build a ship I would either:
-Create a Hull, establish my main systems and then build the power to match around it.
Or
-Build outward from a single point, wrap in systems, then wrap in hull.
Or
Create large blocks of systems, then mould and shape the outside then Hull and pretty it up.

The systems filler can essientialy be moved around where ever I want, if I decide to hollow out the middile for an interior I can just move those blocks to the back of the ship.

With the new building systems you essientialy have 2 large blocks that you cannot be fluid with your placement, or move bits around to pretty up your design.
That being said, centerlised systems is a cool concept that starmade hasn't really had before. Instead of mixing in the power around to beef up our ship we have to create a clump at the center and have to build the rest of the ship around it.
This certiantly does prevent "cloud" builds (which are kinda broken anyway).
If anything I now find it more challenging to build, as gradualy increasing my power to match the rest of my systems requires constant re-developing near the reactor to add more blocks instead of being able to build a new power line in with the thrusters or shields.

I fail to see why filling your ships with systems is a bad idea, no player would want to stuff their ship full of nearly useless hull blocks. If your gonna have empty space then you either add more, or just downsize the ship imo. Empty space is bad for the framrate and disguisting to look at for a builder (if it wasn't designed for looks):/

I want to see all parts of my ship serving a purpose, not just dragging my weight up.

 

[kulbolen]

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

no.

and you know what, i see their goal i think, i just cant relate to how theyre achieving it.

 

[Lancake]

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.