Multiple reactor counting as one

[Scypio]

So let's give it a shot shall we.

The basic idea is simple, a single reactor connected to a lot of secondary ones would work as a single main reactor. For example there is two reactors connected to each others via something. I though about conduits first but then with a bit more though i would go for something like the power stream, because it is a weak spot and spreading your reactor in different spots would need a tradeoff, so power stream or something like this.

(edit : right click, view image and then reload the page if it doesn't show up at first)

The main reactor being the larger one, others are considered as slaves and as such they give their power output to the main reactor. So the total power output of the reactor would be something like Output of reactor A + output of reactor B + ....
However since this is kinda op to spread your reactor in several locations, even with a weak spot linking them you would need a loss of power for each new reactor added. Since i like recursive loop i was thinking about something like that (also it is much more intuitive this way):
Total power output = Sum of ( Power output of reactor*((100-(5*(Number of reactor-1)))/100))
To have something more pleasing with the eye it would look like :
Total power output = Power output of main reactor + Power output of secondary reactor*0.95 + Power output of tertiary reactor*0.90 + ... + power output of twentieth reactor*0.05

Gives us a hard cap at 20 reactors... But i mean you won't ever use up to 20 reactors. That is terribly inefficient to go this far and the goal of this suggestion isn't to go this far. Having a few secondary reactors should be usable without much loss in efficiency but the further you go the more you are punished.

Pretty simple isn't it ? The reactor HP should have the same treatment since it is harder to aim at several smaller reactors than a big one that you know where it is. In the middle.

Also there is one last point to it. The calculation of the stabilizer distance. Since it is calculated from the convex hull of the main reactor, i can suggest to calculate it from the center of the main reactor with a bit of tweaking. Simplest solution.
If you don't like simple solutions you can have this one too. Having an imaginary box with the main reactor as the center of it. The size of the box would be able to contain the sum of all the blocks the reactor has. On the screen above there is a total of 5 reactor of 3*3*3 reactor block. So a total of 135 blocks.
A box of 5*5*5 is 125 so it isn't enough so the imaginary bounding box of the main reactor should be 6*6*6 and thus stabilization distance counted from it.

 

[Admiralkio]

+1

Like.

It's a smart idea.

 

[MrGrey1]

If we're going to have multiple reactors I'd prefer to have the old line reactor reintroduced and use the new reactor system in a similar way to the old auxiliary system with the exception that you could then use either system or both. Old line reactors couldn't have chambers and are soft capped like they used to be and give them something like reverse integrity so you couldn't use them in large blocks. New reactors give you chambers and need stabilizers. I think the combination of those two systems would open up huge possibilities and give us back all the design choices that were made effectively redundant in v2... but just like your idea it's not going to happen. The course has been set by the powers that be and it appears nothing short of divine intervention will change that. So tally-ho old chaps what what?!

 

[MacThule]

Brilliant suggestion.

I'm a little on the fence about this one because I feel like it might leave some loopholes open for advanced exploitation down the line, like docked power but... I really can't see anything concretely wrong with it at first glance and it's nothing like docked power in the end.

It would be convenient. Flexible. Definitely a good idea, particularly in terms of allowing more freedom with interior decoration and form control. I'd love this if it can be safely implemented.

 

[Nosajimiki]

So let's give it a shot shall we.

The basic idea is simple, a single reactor connected to a lot of secondary ones would work as a single main reactor. For example there is two reactors connected to each others via something. I though about conduits first but then with a bit more though i would go for something like the power stream, because it is a weak spot and spreading your reactor in different spots would need a tradeoff, so power stream or something like this.

(edit : right click, view image and then reload the page if it doesn't show up at first)

The main reactor being the larger one, others are considered as slaves and as such they give their power output to the main reactor. So the total power output of the reactor would be something like Output of reactor A + output of reactor B + ....
However since this is kinda op to spread your reactor in several locations, even with a weak spot linking them you would need a loss of power for each new reactor added. Since i like recursive loop i was thinking about something like that (also it is much more intuitive this way):
Total power output = Sum of ( Power output of reactor*((100-(5*(Number of reactor-1)))/100))
To have something more pleasing with the eye it would look like :
Total power output = Power output of main reactor + Power output of secondary reactor*0.95 + Power output of tertiary reactor*0.90 + ... + power output of twentieth reactor*0.05

Gives us a hard cap at 20 reactors... But i mean you won't ever use up to 20 reactors. That is terribly inefficient to go this far and the goal of this suggestion isn't to go this far. Having a few secondary reactors should be usable without much loss in efficiency but the further you go the more you are punished.

Pretty simple isn't it ? The reactor HP should have the same treatment since it is harder to aim at several smaller reactors than a big one that you know where it is. In the middle.

Also there is one last point to it. The calculation of the stabilizer distance. Since it is calculated from the convex hull of the main reactor, i can suggest to calculate it from the center of the main reactor with a bit of tweaking. Simplest solution.
If you don't like simple solutions you can have this one too. Having an imaginary box with the main reactor as the center of it. The size of the box would be able to contain the sum of all the blocks the reactor has. On the screen above there is a total of 5 reactor of 3*3*3 reactor block. So a total of 135 blocks.
A box of 5*5*5 is 125 so it isn't enough so the imaginary bounding box of the main reactor should be 6*6*6 and thus stabilization distance counted from it.

Great idea, but the last part about distances could be simplified if range is calculated from center mass of you primary reactor. That way it does not matter if your reactor is a cube, a stick or a toris; I believe it already does this.

Also, your suggested rHP falloff may not be necessary. While spread out reactors means you have less of a critical zone, you are more likely to get hit in a random reactor. With the way new power works, losing some of your power can cause a power failure cascade since you have a lot more power generation going into maintaining systems now. Between lower total power and the risk of power failure cascades, it may balance out. Also, keep in mind that many things are based on reactor size, so those penalties for multiple reactors means you need a bigger reactor, bigger chambers, bigger more spaced out stabilizers, and more thrusters to move all those additional heavy blocks to meet the same power draw.

This also raises the question: how do you invision chambers here?

• Is your reactor class (and therefore chamber size) based on actual reactor size, or potential power output.
• Could chambers be linked to secondary reactors or just to your main reactor.
• Would this system override the ability to make secondary reactors with their own chamber trees? (such as a smaller secondary reactor for FTL)
• Would each reactor have it's own integrity, or would there be a shared integrity?

Brilliant suggestion.

I'm a little on the fence about this one because I feel like it might leave some loopholes open for advanced exploitation down the line, like docked power but... I really can't see anything concretely wrong with it at first glance and it's nothing like docked power in the end.

It would be convenient. Flexible. Definitely a good idea, particularly in terms of allowing more freedom with interior decoration and form control. I'd love this if it can be safely implemented.

Power just needs to be uninheiratable. This system could easily still force single entity power so docked shenanigans should not be an issue.

 

[Scypio]

Also, your suggested rHP falloff may not be necessary. While spread out reactors means you have less of a critical zone, you are more likely to get hit in a random reactor.

This is true. However Schine talked quite some time ago about chambers that would allow you to see systems with the highlight mechanic and as nothing has been said since. So i believe this is still something planned.
As for the falloff, it's mainly because Schine is willing to gives us the possibility to aim in fights. So between a spread out reactor and one that is obviously in the middle you get some disavantages. You can consider that this part is mostly to seduce Schine and scared ppl about this.

This also raises the question: how do you invision chambers here?

• Is your reactor class (and therefore chamber size) based on actual reactor size, or potential power output.
• Could chambers be linked to secondary reactors or just to your main reactor.
• Would this system override the ability to make secondary reactors with their own chamber trees? (such as a smaller secondary reactor for FTL)
• Would each reactor have it's own integrity, or would there be a shared integrity?

Good questions. Didn't thought about them this much tbh but they probably should work this way :
-reactor size.
-main reactor even if, tbh i feel like there is no problem about being connected to a secondary resctor. My real answer would be what is the easiest and safest to code.
-No
-I dunno. Shared would be the most punishing. I really have no opinion and as such i leave the decision to what schine believe is the best.

Great idea, but the last part about distances could be simplified if range is calculated from center mass of you primary reactor. That way it does not matter if your reactor is a cube, a stick or a toris; I believe it already does this.

Depending on what schine wants. Currently it is calculated from the convex hull and this means that the reactor need to be the smallest possible in the longest size. Wich could mean that a long rod could allow you to go from the tip to the back of your ship. And this whole power update was about forced empty space and tie the size to the ship capability.

 

[Nosajimiki]

A long rod would still require more or less the same amount of stablizer spacing while consuming the same volume, but that is a trade-off of skinyer profile vs lower integrity.

 

[Scypio]

I'm not the one to convince.

 

[GalactusX]

This brings to my head two words: "shape reactors", it would be great to be able to "use / design" different shapes of reactors and being able to use the one that best suits your needs, be it big or small ... but that, following the reasoning and design line of starmade, goes against all norms ... ONE ONLY active reactor, all others turned off, and if the MAIN REACTOR is destroyed, all others have penalties everywhere.