Make Integrity Great

[God mode]

This suggestion is intended to reintroduce optional complexity and design into reactor construction, and to extend this to most other systems as well.

Increase the effectiveness of a system block as the number of its exposed faces increases, up to a cap. With the current integrity mechanics, a cap of 3 seems optimal.

More exposed faces means a more powerful system, but lower system integrity and so a higher chance of your system becoming disabled as blocks are destroyed. A simple, solid system would still be completely viable, but would have an emphasis on durability rather than efficiency.

Since the basic rules are quite simple, it would be fairly easy to learn initially and be flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of possible designs, yet would still provide plenty of room for optimization.

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

I think this would be very frustrating to optimize and lead to people running around with glass cannons while shoving systems in random spots in the wall would return.

I do think that vulnerability to raw power should be a tradeoff, but it'd make more sense to use stabilizers instead of integrity.

 

[GnomeKing]

Interesting...I like trade-off type mechanics and the extra depth of making block geometry more meaningful to use (whilst not necessarily being critical for basic game-play)...

Integrity, yes, but also weapon/system stat-functions and capacity vs re-charge, are possible attributes I would like to consider in relation to block-geometry.

 

[God mode]

I think this would be very frustrating to optimize and lead to people running around with glass cannons while shoving systems in random spots in the wall would return.

Why do you think this? It seems to me that there would be many different ways to create an optimally-shaped system given a certain volume.

Keep in mind that a block with more than 3 exposed faces would gain no additional performance, so just placing blocks in isolated areas would be the worst thing you could do.

I do think that vulnerability to raw power should be a tradeoff, but it'd make more sense to use stabilizers instead of integrity.

This trade-off already mostly exists for reactors in the form of stabilizers as you said. The point of this suggestion isn't the trade-off mechanic specifically, but rather using that mechanic to encourage non-cubic systems. I would be fine with this being achieved some other way.

Integrity, yes, but also weapon/system stat-functions and capacity vs re-charge, are possible attributes I would like to consider in relation to block-geometry.

I don't think this idea would apply well to weapons since it could be exploited, at least under the current mechanics, but we'll see if this is remedied in the future.

Agreed on the power capacity vs recharge. I think power capacitors should be brought back or replaced by something better. Power capacity already exists, we just can't modify it, which is silly.

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

Why do you think this? It seems to me that there would be many different ways to create an optimally-shaped system given a certain volume.

Keep in mind that a block with more than 3 exposed faces would gain no additional performance, so just placing blocks in isolated areas would be the worst thing you could do.


This trade-off already mostly exists for reactors in the form of stabilizers as you said. The point of this suggestion isn't the trade-off mechanic specifically, but rather using that mechanic to encourage non-cubic systems. I would be fine with this being achieved some other way.



I don't think this idea would apply well to weapons since it could be exploited, at least under the current mechanics, but we'll see if this is remedied in the future.

Agreed on the power capacity vs recharge. I think power capacitors should be brought back or replaced by something better. Power capacity already exists, we just can't modify it, which is silly.

It's not about the freedom to create an optimal system, it's about the effort to create an optimal system. When I build a ship, I don't want to spend an extra hour figuring out the desired integrity to get the effectiveness without vulnerability and create the weird shapes necessary to lower the integrity properly. Ship design even right now is crazy between integrity and the stabilizer system.

Also, that isn't what stabilizers do. They just straightup increase reactor output, there is no decision in not using them and hardly any in how to use them, and mostly they just create an annoyance of having extra crap to shove in an interior space somewhere in your ship's nose or wings.

 

[Agame3]

Current integrity helps immensely cubes/bricks with spaced armor and spaghetti. I think I could do a catamaran-style ship out of 2 bricks with nothing between them and I think it's integrity will be flawless, having at the same time all the advantages of both cubes and spaghetti. Well, not quite as compact as a cube, but anyway

I'm thinking of it like a stack of 3 bricks, then make the middle one disappear.

 

[God mode]

It's not about the freedom to create an optimal system, it's about the effort to create an optimal system. When I build a ship, I don't want to spend an extra hour figuring out the desired integrity to get the effectiveness without vulnerability and create the weird shapes necessary to lower the integrity properly. Ship design even right now is crazy between integrity and the stabilizer system.

You shouldn't need to do any of this to create a good ship. The bonus would be small enough that it's not at all required, just enough to make systems with complex shapes as viable as cubic systems. Only in the extreme edge cases would a complex system be significantly better overall.

If a player does want to make the absolute best reactor or thruster system possible for their specific ship, I think they should need to put in some time to design it.

Also, that isn't what stabilizers do. They just straightup increase reactor output, there is no decision in not using them and hardly any in how to use them, and mostly they just create an annoyance of having extra crap to shove in an interior space somewhere in your ship's nose or wings.

I agree with the sentiment, but a low stabilization is supposed to negatively affect the reactor in ways other than raw power output. Same thing with weapon impacts on the power stream; you can get more power by moving your stabilizers further away, but then you make your power stream more vulnerable. It was implemented quite poorly and doesn't really matter at the moment, but at least the intent is there.

 

[Coyote27]

Increase the effectiveness of a system block as the number of its exposed faces increases, up to a cap. With the current integrity mechanics, a cap of 3 seems optimal.

More exposed faces means a more powerful system, but lower system integrity and so a higher chance of your system becoming disabled as blocks are destroyed.

Interesting idea, but bear in mind that more exposed surface area (even if it's behind glass or covered by a spaced shell) means more textures being rendered and therefore more computer resources consumed and worse performance. We shouldn't give explicit gameplay reasons to make the game harder to run.

 

[Zoolimar]

Interesting idea, but bear in mind that more exposed surface area (even if it's behind glass or covered by a spaced shell) means more textures being rendered and therefore more computer resources consumed and worse performance.

Most people cover system blocks with some kind of a non-transparent shell to prevent rendering of animated blocks. So those exposed faces are not actually exposed. They are just not covered by other system blocks in the same group - which is exactly what counts for integrity.