Brainstorm This New Power Block

[TheOmega]

Maybe you're just way too subtle. Again, human has added some extra routine, to extract, process and regularly redistribute the petroleum, to make Cars work. It is tedious and even dangerous work, but it's worth the benefits. And if you propose the addition of a power system, that doesn't require any fuel, then the complexity is not enough for an equal choice being present to favor one over another - you will always use the one, that is more efficient, and abandon prior method permanently. The same way as if IRL we actually mass-produce and distribute some "neutrino-generator" that requires no fuel, petroleum industry will collapse. I don't want that to happen with conventional power arrays we're all used to, so I suggest a system which would require some additional considerations and failsaves if you'd wish to use the more powerful system.

Again, human has added some extra routine, to extract, process and regularly redistribute the petroleum, to make Cars work

AKA make it complicated to make it better, AKA not tedious because the oil industry is very dangerous, AKA nothing like using something simply more efficient. Why are there still cars with emissions if electric cars are better in every way? Almost every way?

 

[DivineEvil]

All I know is that I want fuel to have no part of the default StarMade game. If you want fuel as an add-on mod I have no problem with that, but I like the system for power as it is.

I have no problem with that either. The issue were, that you haven't made a clear claim until this very moment. I've never said it HAS to be by default, it's up to dvelopers to elaborate on and decide.

When a conflict arises you should try to avoid looking for sidesteps and half-baked arguments and go straight to the point instead. You should understand that saying that 'you like it the way it is' is as far from brainstorming as it can get. It also pointless to state your simplistic position over and over again to every person, who doesnt relate to you opinion. It's not gonna make your position any stronger. I hope you'd understand.

Adding fuel - at least the way you're proposing it, DivineEvil - appears to be that it would allow ships that use fuel to recieve an amount of power with fuel in a much smaller space than what would be required for a regular power system. That's not an alternative at all, it just means everyone who wants to win with less resource expenditures will automatically go to the fuel system to get their power. The way I see it, you can't balance a system like that which only stores power up to a point, without it being totally overpowered.

In a significant less space indeed. On the other hand, it would require more expensive resources to produce and accumulate in an effective amount, not mentioning their susceptibility to damage and potential losses. Current power regen is basically transofming one type of dirt into another more dense type of dirt, from a value standpoint, and we're talking about the CORE system that everything else is working on. Besides, from your example, it is actually less expensive to use the most basic system. So in the general picture, it would be completely up to you whether or not you're willing to add risk and additional expenses to make your ship perform more efficiently.

If math is in action, everything can be balanced.

Why are there still cars with emissions if electric cars are better in every way? Almost every way?

Because they're more expensive to produce, they doesn't have a wide public appreciation, and there's no infrastructure in place that would allow to use them in a casual way. Look, I might have a machine as an avatar, but I'm not a human-propelled encyclopedia. GO read a wiki or something. If you got no valid arguments left then I don't see why you're still around.

 

[TheOmega]

Because they're more expensive to produce, they doesn't have a wide public appreciation, and there's no infrastructure in place that would allow to use them in a casual way. Look, I might have a machine as an avatar, but I'm not a human-propelled encyclopedia. GO read a wiki or something. If you got no valid arguments left then I don't see why you're still around.

Exactly. Fuel power gen : Normal power gen :: Electric cars : Normal fuel powered cars

More expensive to produce, don't have a wide public appreciation from some standpoints (having fuel as main generator), and there is no infrastructure in place that would allow them to be used in a casual way. You, my friend, have just had your argument turned against you.

 

[Planr]

DivineEvil, i'll admit, your argument is way too complicated for me to 100% understand. Maybe my opinion is too simple, but to me that's because the issue at hand is rather simple, and just because our arguments/opinions are simple doesn't mean they don't matter.

Combat is the #1 situation in which the potential of a power system is most critical, as it's when it's most needed. Even if fuel machinery is more expensive to produce, that doesn't matter if it gives people a better edge in combat. People like me who want to be as strong as possible in combat would use that fuel system, regardless of the cost of manufacturing it. "Susceptibility to damage and potential losses"? People who go into combat already know what they're getting into. Besides, the only point at which it'd be susceptible is after your shields are down, at which point you'd probably have already jumped out or fled the battle if you're smart.

 

[DivineEvil]

DivineEvil, i'll admit, your argument is way too complicated for me to understand. Maybe my opinion is too simple, but to me that's because the issue at hand is rather simple, and just because our arguments/opinions are simple doesn't mean they don't matter.

There's no an issue. There's an idea, and developers tagged this very topic so that anyone could have their personal imput! Repeatedly attacking someone else's personal imput is a detrimental to brainstorming. I'm basically sitting here and wasting my time refuting unjustified assumptions without anything added to the topic in the process.

Combat is the #1 situation in which the potential of a power system is most critical, as it's when it's most needed. Even if fuel machinery is more expensive to produce, that doesn't matter if it gives people a better edge in combat. People like me who want to be as strong as possible in combat would use that fuel system, regardless of the cost of manufacturing it. "Susceptibility to damage and potential losses"? People who go into combat already know what they're getting into. Besides, the only point at which it'd be susceptible is after your shields are down, at which point you'd probably have already jumped out or fled the battle if you're smart.

I'm sorry, but your personal opinions and assumptions are not a dogma for everyone else. You probably don't realize how inflexible your approach is. When there's an idea, you might want to explore the possibilities, rather than refute the whole direction of thought for a bunch of people based solely on your personal preferences. We're not waging a flame-war about the newly implemented feature, so you shouldn't act like we are.

Exactly. Fuel power gen : Normal power gen :: Electric cars : Normal fuel powered cars

More expensive to produce, don't have a wide public appreciation from some standpoints (having fuel as main generator), and there is no infrastructure in place that would allow them to be used in a casual way. You, my friend, have just had your argument turned against you.

That's your assumption. I do not want to replace the present system, I want alternatives, that can perform equally well for different applications and not so well for others. I never mentioned any infrastructure needed for the fuel-based reactors. I simply answered your question, thus I haven't turned my argument anywhere.

Your arrogance is astonishing. You really have nothing to say on the topic, so I hold no obligation for wasting anymore time entertaining you.

 

[Rasor1911]

Ok, I'm going to step in here and stop this before it gets worse, after this post lets not talk about who is right or wrong or anything along those lines, in fact lets just ignore whats gone on before this gets worse.

On the other hand, i see there has been alot of discussion on fuel implementation and the aspects of it. Personally i think fuel will add an interesting aspect into the game, adding more reasons for faction wars and battles if the fuel sources are limited, perhaps the sources are quite rare? Of course the devs will always allow us to modify the config, we can already do alot with the configs, such as re-balance every single block and, as proven on the server which name escapes me, modify how blocks work by changing the formula for thrust.

But back onto the design stated at the start, adding that in before fuel(if it ever happens) will be quite good, i like the idea of bonus power generation better than the current cheaty way of making power we have, with group bonuses that help the ship, but negative effects of a large nuke-like explosive sitting somewhere on your ship.

That's my two pennies, what do you guys think?

 

[Planr]

DivineEvil, calm down. What I'm trying to tell you is that combat is the deciding factor of how viable a power system is in comparison to others. That's not an assumption, that's not a personal opinion, and it's not one-siding the issue. It's a fact, and something I know myself from personal experience.

If you look at any other situation in StarMade where power is required, none present themselves as being as power-needy as a ship in combat. When in combat, you've got to keep all your weapons and other systems running at the best capacity they can, and for that you need power, and in that moment you need it the most, to help keep the enemy at bay and keep your own systems running. So, when you enter combat, you want a ship that can supply the greatest amount of power possible for the ship design you've got. You want to use the space your ship has in the most efficient manner possible. That's not an assumption, that's simply common sense. So if you've got a power system that uses fuel, and gives more power per second, and takes up less space than the traditional reactor blocks, you would naturally want to use it instead of the regular power system. That's what i've been trying to say. That is not me trying to force "dogma" on other people, that's not me being "inflexible", it's just simple common sense.

Nobody is waging a flame war, and I nowhere acted like we are.

You say you want alternatives to the current system, but as I said before, there has yet to be even one functioning idea presented for how fuel could work without being either (desirably) exclusively used or not used at all as a power source.
[DOUBLEPOST=1435174216,1435173723][/DOUBLEPOST]

But back onto the design stated at the start, adding that in before fuel(if it ever happens) will be quite good, i like the idea of bonus power generation better than the current cheaty way of making power we have, with group bonuses that help the ship, but negative effects of a large nuke-like explosive sitting somewhere on your ship.

That's my two pennies, what do you guys think?

I think a higher-return power block would be a good alternative to normal power, but only as an add-on source after the softcap of 1 million or so regen is reached. Essentially meaning that adding on the "higher power" reactor block would always contribute a flat rate of regen per second. That way people wouldn't have to use such huge amounts of regular power blocks to get more regen past the 1 million mark. Although, on the other hand, that's kind of what dockable power generators are for.

 

[TheOmega]

How about this:

• We keep the current system.
• We add a system with fuel that is better than the current system.
• We add an equivalent system that REDUCES the SHP of the ship, and explodes when hit anywhere in the group.
• We add a fourth system that is in the middle but also adds power capacity and has the same grouping mechanism as the current capacitors.
• In order to make fuel and explosives have the same inconveniences, you need fuel tanks, so that people can't just have a stack of 2147483647 fuel items thingies in an inventory.

Oh also we remove the part about multiple groups having diminishing returns on the total power regen so that 2 500k reactors makes 1 mil regen instead of 900k.

 

[Planr]

I'm fine with adding those systems as long as they are mods people have to download, rather than things that are in the default game.

 

[Rasor1911]

I would be maybe okay with a higher-return power block as long as it was much heavier than normal power blocks, much more expensive to make, and had a big explosion when hit. Perhaps it could have an additional drawback to its operation, such as increasing damage done to shields, so as to make its explosion risk that much more of a danger?

I feel like the "Anti-matter" power block should have a relativley high energy output, and group bonuses, it could have a higher mass than say, normal blocks, affecting ships along those lines. on the side of increasing damage done to shields i think that would be a bad idea as losing a reactor doesn't make sense to make shields weaker, and i was thinking along the lines of explosion size to be quite large, taking away any nearby blocks. Also to add to the fact that it's exploding, it shouldn't be affected by shields of the ship it is on, and if that was your main power source, and you didn't build your ship carefully, thats alot of your systems gone due to the explosion or no power to recharge shields or weapons

Also: two posts where made when i started typing this, my my you guys are a fast lot!
[DOUBLEPOST=1435175051,1435174584][/DOUBLEPOST]

How about this:

• We keep the current system.
• We add a system with fuel that is better than the current system.
• We add an equivalent system that REDUCES the SHP of the ship, and explodes when hit anywhere in the group.
• We add a fourth system that is in the middle but also adds power capacity and has the same grouping mechanism as the current capacitors.
• In order to make fuel and explosives have the same inconveniences, you need fuel tanks, so that people can't just have a stack of 2147483647 fuel items thingies in an inventory.

Oh also we remove the part about multiple groups having diminishing returns on the total power regen so that 2 500k reactors makes 1 mil regen instead of 900k.

Nice idea on the reduction of ship HP, although personally i think it shouldn't reduce it, just not get counted.
i also think fuel should have an entire mechanism around it, like it's a liquid and you need to pipe it from one location to another instead of solid fuels, although I'm not entirely sure if that can be done in this engine, (inspiration from fuel mods in minecraft, with it flowing along pipes and stored in tanks)

The soft cap on the generation with power blocks should stay, however the new block will not be affected by it, because personally, if you need more than 1million power to stay active, i want a way to take you down after your stupid shield size is finally gone.

 

[TheOmega]

The soft cap on the generation with power blocks should stay, however the new block will not be affected by it, because personally, if you need more than 1million power to stay active, i want a way to take you down after your stupid shield size is finally gone.

No, not the 1 mil soft cap, when you have multiple different groups, the power contributed by each group is reduced. Like I said, if you have 2 SEPARATE reactors producing 500k each, you only get around 900k total instead of the 1 mil that would make sense.

 

[Rasor1911]

No, not the 1 mil soft cap, when you have multiple different groups, the power contributed by each group is reduced. Like I said, if you have 2 SEPARATE reactors producing 500k each, you only get around 900k total instead of the 1 mil that would make sense.

Ah, sorry for misinterpreting that, seems like I have learned something new today.
Hmm, i feel like a feature like that was done intended with the current system we have, probably for balance reasons for large ships and smaller ships, considering we're planning on a extra energy system for large ships, i'll guess the reactors we have now might also be made weaker for larger ships, to make people use the larger and more dangerous reactors to promote better ship planning and designing.

 

[shadowulf]

OK, I'll state my idea.

1) current power blocks stay in, however get slightly nerfed.

2) fueled reactors make a debut, along with their computer, but do not produce power, they take current power production and act as a secondary effect, doubling or even more based on block count compared to power generators.this is achieved by activating the computer via hot bar or logic. It costs equal # of power reactors x .66+fr (fr equaling 1/2 the number of fueled reactors)

3) fuel reactors can act as overdrive if connected to a thruster, but consume 2x the amount of thrusters in fuel every 5 seconds. For example, 250% percent thrust on a 500 thruster group costs 1000fuel/sec its active. This is achieved by connecting thrusters to the computer for the fueled reactor

 

[Rasor1911]

OK, I'll state my idea.

1) current power blocks stay in, however get slightly nerfed.

2) fueled reactors make a debut, along with their computer, but do not produce power, they take current power production and act as a secondary effect, doubling or even more based on block count compared to power generators.this is achieved by activating the computer via hot bar or logic. It costs equal # of power reactors x .66+fr (fr equaling 1/2 the number of fueled reactors)

3) fuel reactors can act as overdrive if connected to a thruster, but consume 2x the amount of thrusters in fuel every 5 seconds. For example, 250% percent thrust on a 500 thruster group costs 1000fuel/sec its active. This is achieved by connecting thrusters to the computer for the fueled reactor

So we add in a new effect that changes power generation or thrust for the cost of fuel?
Although it sounds like a nice idea and would be easy to make, there are already lot of effects and this feels like it would get overlooked. Although i do like the idea of increasing the power of thrusters using fuel.

 

[shadowulf]

So we add in a new effect that changes power generation or thrust for the cost of fuel?
Although it sounds like a nice idea and would be easy to make, there are already lot of effects and this feels like it would get overlooked. Although i do like the idea of increasing the power of thrusters using fuel.

I agree, however I'm trying to show how fueled reactors could be implemented without destroying the current reactor system.
I'll edit how they work. Hmmm
The computer, if not connected to thrusters, it takes current power regen-the static powercons, and uses that number in a ratio with the current number of modules, to multiply the amount of surplus power. An example. . 100293 e/s-67,431 power con= 22,862 with 1000 modules, 22,862/100 equals 22.862, so 220% power output, or 50,296.4 power while the reactor has enough fuel. Fuel consumption could be 1/5 the final output, or in this example 10,059.8 units/sec

 

[Rasor1911]

I agree, however I'm trying to show how fueled reactors could be implemented without destroying the current reactor system.
I'll edit how they work. Hmmm
The computer, if not connected to thrusters, it takes current power regen-the static powercons, and uses that number in a ratio with the current number of modules, to multiply the amount of surplus power. An example. . 100293 e/s-67,431 power con= 22,862 with 1000 modules, 22,862/100 equals 22.862, so 220% power output, or 50,296.4 power while the reactor has enough fuel. Fuel consumption could be 1/5 the final output, or in this example 10,059.8 units/sec

Hmm, i kinda like that, decent way to work it out, I'm wondering whats the ratio based on? is it mass or current power gen?
Also about the idea that it uses fuel a second, do you have any idea how much fuel we would get from fuel sources?
It still feels like this is "beating around the bush" by adding a power generation buff instead of a new power block, even if i do quite like the idea.

And for the people who have read this far and still don't like the idea of fuel, most, nearly all, of the stuff that gets implemented is tweakable in the config files.

 

[shadowulf]

Hmm, i kinda like that, decent way to work it out, I'm wondering whats the ratio based on? is it mass or current power gen?
Also about the idea that it uses fuel a second, do you have any idea how much fuel we would get from fuel sources?
It still feels like this is "beating around the bush" by adding a power generation buff instead of a new power block, even if i do quite like the idea.

And for the people who have read this far and still don't like the idea of fuel, most, nearly all, of the stuff that gets implemented is tweakable in the config files.

I thought the current power gen minus the static power cons (mass,shield recharge) then I figured that amount of 'unallocated energy' could get pumped through the new reactors at a ratio of 1000(# of modules) to 1,or the 22.862. Then divide by ten to get the ratio of increase, or total percent multiplier, and get 2.2. Then multiply amount of 'free energy' and the multiplier, and you get 50.296.4. I wasn't thinking about potential fuel sources,so that fuel consumption would probably not work. Any ideas to developed this further, anyone?

 

[DivineEvil]

That's not an assumption, that's simply common sense. So if you've got a power system that uses fuel, and gives more power per second, and takes up less space than the traditional reactor blocks, you would naturally want to use it instead of the regular power system. That's what i've been trying to say. That is not me trying to force "dogma" on other people, that's not me being "inflexible", it's just simple common sense.

What I meant is that you assume, that absolutely nobody would choose to use the lower-end generators at all. I understand where you're coming from, but what I'm trying to imply is that from three different methods any can be used with appropriate drawback. It's not set in stone whether or not someone will definitely choose to place a "tank of nitroglycerin" into their ship. It going to make quite a big one in order to justify it, which means more shields and weapons, which means more reactor modules are required, which also means more fuel is required, which in turn might make it viable to sacrifice some of the saved space for supplementary reactors which you'd use outside of combat etc. etc.

• We keep the current system.

• We add a system with fuel that is better than the current system.

• We add an equivalent system that REDUCES the SHP of the ship, and explodes when hit anywhere in the group.

• We add a fourth system that is in the middle but also adds power capacity and has the same grouping mechanism as the current capacitors.

• In order to make fuel and explosives have the same inconveniences, you need fuel tanks, so that people can't just have a stack of 2147483647 fuel items thingies in an inventory.

• Sure.
• Sure.
• Ok.
• Not sure what the presumed function of this one would be. Please elaborate upon what you're willing to achieve by this fourth system.
• Justified, although its probably going to be meant for a single specific type of fuel. It would look well with the framework of limited item stack sizes, that are planned. What is the mechanism of their interactions you thin it should have?

Nice idea on the reduction of ship HP, although personally i think it shouldn't reduce it, just not get counted.
i also think fuel should have an entire mechanism around it, like it's a liquid and you need to pipe it from one location to another instead of solid fuels, although I'm not entirely sure if that can be done in this engine, (inspiration from fuel mods in minecraft, with it flowing along pipes and stored in tanks)

It can be done, but I don't think it's necessary. Schema seem to avoid these mechanics completely, and I can't agree more.

fueled reactors make a debut, along with their computer, but do not produce power, they take current power production and act as a secondary effect, doubling or even more based on block count compared to power generators.this is achieved by activating the computer via hot bar or logic. It costs equal # of power reactors x .66+fr (fr equaling 1/2 the number of fueled reactors)

3) fuel reactors can act as overdrive if connected to a thruster, but consume 2x the amount of thrusters in fuel every 5 seconds. For example, 250% percent thrust on a 500 thruster group costs 1000fuel/sec its active. This is achieved by connecting thrusters to the computer for the fueled reactor

I think it's unwise to disrupt the Effect pattern with another Effect, that would work only with specific systems, than never relied on any Effects to begin with. It is also quite counter-intuitive to have a generator, that produces power on its own, but produces more power when fuel is provided. I can get the idea of the separate Afterburners, that would increase ship's acceleration and maybe even turning, but still it seems out of place when you can instead place an Overdrive system and get the same effect.

Besides, please do not burden youself with specific values. Only the conceptual part is important.

 

[shadowulf]

I think it's unwise to disrupt the Effect pattern with another Effect, that would work only with specific systems, than never relied on any Effects to begin with. It is also quite counter-intuitive to have a generator, that produces power on its own, but produces more power when fuel is provided. I can get the idea of the separate Afterburners, that would increase ship's acceleration and maybe even turning, but still it seems out of place when you can instead place an Overdrive system and get the same effect.

Besides, please do not burden youself with specific values. Only the conceptual part is important.

i did it just for the sake of an example is all, the real values would be determined by the devs.

 

[TheOmega]

The fourth system was just an idea thrown out there as a balance between saving space and having power.