New Power DEV Thread

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,709
    Reaction score
    1,512
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    You don't get it, do you? I only have problems with idiotic dimension based balancing of the new system. I like the rest. Stabilizers either need to be removed or reworked into something that doesn't require distance, because distance means nothing to a meta builder.
    Well, thats what was going on before we got derailed, trying to come up with better things for stabilizers to be.

    I just think there are better ways to approach the matter than "I told you so"s. Lets try to come up with something better to replace it with instead of just saying it needs to go with nothing better to do with it. I mean, right now its far enough along with the builds that its going to happen, its pretty clear the devs are set on this being a thing. So lets try to improve the thing as much as we can.

    I personally wouldn't mind seeing stabilizer distance go away, and making them act like the power generators did before. It never made sense why reactor lines and boxes needed to be a thing, unless they were some kind of giant antenna sucking power out of the universe itself. But with stabilizers? Having to create that three dimensional shape around a reactor would start to make sense.
     
    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    Explicitly rewarding high single dimensions and by extension a high surface;volume area is a commonality of both old reactors and devs reactor<>stabilizer mechanic, this severely impacts aesthetic builds & smaller ships as well as any form of heavy armor, which is already severely underpowered.
    In the old power system, there was NO ship greater than 100 meters that I could not get maximum power into. None! While technically it was dimension based, it was sufficiently flexible that someone with a proper understanding of the power mechanics could make 'any' design shape or even size, work effectively. The new system does not. Long thin ships will utterly decimate any and all other designs, except for pod ships, which will be the new optimum.

    Power is king. It was in the old system, and it will be in the new as well. Long thin and pod ships will have 'by far' the most power, and there endeth.
     
    Joined
    Aug 3, 2016
    Messages
    187
    Reaction score
    96
    Well, thats what was going on before we got derailed, trying to come up with better things for stabilizers to be.
    I just think there are better ways to approach the matter than "I told you so"s. Lets try to come up with something better to replace it
    My thinkbox hurts. Isn't that what you were doing just now?
     

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,709
    Reaction score
    1,512
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    An interesting possibility since we have a mechanic in place now to determine size and general shape of a reactor, instead of having the current system of farther = better, what if it had a sweet spot? Combine the distance thing with the 3d box of the old power lines. If you have a square reactor, there would be a sweet spot X blocks out using the current distance stuff where they get peak performance, and then have performance drop again if they're too far away so that you have to build a cube of stabilizers. Then have the stabilizers increase in effect based on bounding boxes like the old power generators did.

    So that you would basically be building a containment vessel around the reactor instead of just arbitrarily dropping stabilizers as gap filler on the other end of the ship.
     
    Joined
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages
    154
    Reaction score
    439
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    There seem to be a lot of valid ideas and suggestions being offered, but being ignored because anger and frustration are stopping people from listening to each other.

    This is a dev build. We have time to influence and play with different designs and directions. Fighting each other obscures the feedback you are providing and ultimately diminishes the final product.

    It looks like stabilizers are the main point of contention at the moment, and there have been many changes suggested. We should see if we can try as many of them as possible to see what strikes the right balance between effectiveness and creativity. I know I'd like to play with having stabilizers having no red zone, but just greater effectiveness at range. Unstable reactors also sounds worth experimenting with. Let's keep our minds open and be willing to test and provide feedback without ultimately dismissing the ideas of others.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 0ldSkull
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages
    292
    Reaction score
    153
    • Arrrty
    • TwitchCon 2015
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    The criticism comes from already knowing what we would do to beat the new system and knowing that if we did that, it would result in some autistic garbage.
    This is the problem I've seen in this thread, and what I was pointing out. There are many claims of what types of ships this system will degenerate to, but no material evidence or discussion given to back them up. Maybe some of you have come to these conclusions by actually working in the new dev build. But nobody reading the thread would know of this, and some of the discussion is clearly not based on that.

    Where are the ships? Or the details about what doesn't work and why? Where do you stick your weapons and non-power systems on a "dumbell" ship, an imaginary design which seems purely based on building a ship containing nothing but a power system? I've been following this thread to try to get some insights (since I unfortunately haven't had a lot of time to spend analyzing the game), and instead can't find much beyond a bunch of bitching.
     

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Refer to one of dozens of posts explaining why dimensions are bad metric for size and how stabilizers & dimensions are related, stabilizers being a block intended to control the amount of power a ship of any specific size can generate, as has been stated by schine staff

    example, panpiper says he can fit 2m e/s into any ship over 100 meters. in a 1x1x100 that's objectively impossible (without actually not being a 1x1x100, but sploity territory to achieve). This is why dimensions as a metric for size dont work, there is no rule to say we can't build in such a way in starmade, it should be balanced against in order to discourage it in a practical way, not rewarded. And stabilizers very much COULD accomplish that if they were to be repurposed.
     
    Last edited:

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,709
    Reaction score
    1,512
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Especially since the chambers need to be physically attached to the reactor via conduits, the overall feel is that we are trying to move towards obvious discrete "systems" instead of things being spread out everywhere, the idea of just having arbitrary blobs of stabilizers out there as random gap filler seems to go against that feel. If we had the stabilizer location be required to surround the reactor, it would help turn the reactor as a whole into a discrete, cohesive unit.

    It would also get rid of the whole "free floating stabilizer pods a kilometer away" if they were required to be connected by conduit that would be easily hit by concentrated fire and disconnect them.

    And actually, I would like to see the conduits between chambers and reactors be expanded as well. I've always liked the idea that you should need to link your major systems to your power source physically instead of having that power magically teleport to them. Having conduits have to physically connect your reactor to your weapon systems, to your thrusters, etc would make for a more interesting design process, as well as giving a ship more actual targets to aim at (so you could target the power distribution system, for example).
     
    • Like
    Reactions: jw608 and Ithirahad
    Joined
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages
    666
    Reaction score
    928
    This is the problem I've seen in this thread, and what I was pointing out. There are many claims of what types of ships this system will degenerate to, but no material evidence or discussion given to back them up. Maybe some of you have come to these conclusions by actually working in the new dev build. But nobody reading the thread would know of this, and some of the discussion is clearly not based on that.

    Where are the ships? Or the details about what doesn't work and why? Where do you stick your weapons and non-power systems on a "dumbell" ship, an imaginary design which seems purely based on building a ship containing nothing but a power system? I've been following this thread to try to get some insights (since I unfortunately haven't had a lot of time to spend analyzing the game), and instead can't find much beyond a bunch of bitching.
    There have been several examples of these ships already posted in various discord channels featuring things like missile cruisers that can cause billions of alpha damage by floating stabilizers way out in space vs people who are trying to refit old hulls being unable to achieve previous baseline amounts of firepower.
     

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,709
    Reaction score
    1,512
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    people who are trying to refit old hulls being unable to achieve previous baseline amounts of firepower.
    Honestly I see this is a bit of a good thing.

    I don't see "Now we have to redesign everything" as a bad thing, honestly. Its an alpha, we shouldn't be overly attached to things we built under previous iterations to start with, we're all working under the assumption that anything we make can be invalidated before launch.

    If ships are having a harder time reaching their previous firepower, or having harder times powering things, I actually see that more as a downward force in general. Okay, so you are going to have a harder time making every single weapon on your ship be able to obliterate anything it hits in one shot. Thats a good thing in my book, armor tanking should be more viable. If its harder to make sustained weapons fire that cuts ships in half, we can move more into being creative with our weapons and our piloting skills instead of just relying on overpowered weapons.

    Reduce the distance required for stabilizers or otherwise make them more cohesive with the reactor system to cut out some of the "reactor pods a kilometer away" stuff, make weapons a little less powerful, and we might get some fights that don't boil down to parking next to each other and unloading.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: DrTarDIS and jw608

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    the idea of just having arbitrary blobs of stabilizers out there as random gap filler seems to go against that feel. If we had the stabilizer location be required to surround the reactor, it would help turn the reactor as a whole into a discrete, cohesive unit.
    yes and yes, having them actually have to surround your reactors from multiple angles would then force us to weigh up our reactor efficiency versus our potential turn radius/speed and turret real estate, that's actual balance that matters for combat ships of any design
     
    Last edited:

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    An interesting possibility since we have a mechanic in place now to determine size and general shape of a reactor, instead of having the current system of farther = better, what if it had a sweet spot? Combine the distance thing with the 3d box of the old power lines. If you have a square reactor, there would be a sweet spot X blocks out using the current distance stuff where they get peak performance, and then have performance drop again if they're too far away so that you have to build a cube of stabilizers. Then have the stabilizers increase in effect based on bounding boxes like the old power generators did.

    So that you would basically be building a containment vessel around the reactor instead of just arbitrarily dropping stabilizers as gap filler on the other end of the ship.
    I can see something like this working, but I feel like it would have to be much smaller and preferably linear distance, and to have the inside be empty of other systems. This would be like the shielding on a real nuclear reactor.

    Systems could hook conduits up to the outer shell of stabilizers or to the reactor itself on ships with reactors small enough to not need shielding.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: jw608 and Ithirahad

    Edymnion

    Carebear Extraordinaire!
    Joined
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages
    2,709
    Reaction score
    1,512
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    I can see something like this working, but I feel like it would have to be much smaller and preferably linear distance, and to have the inside be empty of other systems. This would be like the shielding on a real nuclear reactor.
    Precisely.

    The complexity of physically placing the stabilizer shell using the old power generator bounding box rules would then replace the need for arbitrary distances away, because the stabilizers would need larger areas to begin with.

    If we said something like the "strength of the stabilizer field" had to match the power output of the reactor, and have the stabilizer output follow the old power generator rules, and maybe top it off with "you can't have anything inside the stabilizers except the reactor and the chambers" then we get back into "Well crap, how do I build this to get as much out of as small an area as possible?".

    We could use the size/shape mechanic we have for reactors now, and apply it to the stabilizer array. That would define the "no go" area for blocks without having to do constant calculation checks.
     
    Joined
    May 28, 2017
    Messages
    13
    Reaction score
    10
    • Legacy Citizen
    • Purchased!
    Reactors and Stabilizers being separated doesn't really matter, if either one is destroyed, you're either at such low power that your ship becomes essentially disabled, or actually completely disabled... It's double the blocks for basically no reason, but I do like the idea of stabilizers actually needing to touch the reactor...
    Could even make them look like a radiator and rename them to radiators, actually put them outside of the ship, with that distance the devs are trying so hard to keep, it would actually make logical sense then that they are farther away from the reactor, since they should actually be exposed to space to dissipate the heat generated by the reactor, could even make them less efficient for each covered side of the block, so they actually work better externally exposed, and not very good at all completely enclosed inside the ship... so then either flat panels or radiator fins, or long rods (most surface area exposed would be the rods) ... dunno if it's something they already have, but it seems like the old reactor blocks had some way of knowing if your dimension groups were touching or connected by blocks and such... Could work out and make more logical sense...
    With that idea, you could remove the distance requirement since exposure to empty space would be the limiting factor that forces you to build a certain way... Might make ships look more like a real space ship would, then.
    [doublepost=1507658289,1507657327][/doublepost]All in all, though, this still won't make RP ships viable, PVP will just build solid-packed ships still, you just require them to put the systems in different places now, with a couple blobs of power blocks... Still won't force empty space or make empty space any better, especially with turn speeds being based on ship's dimensions... a larger dimensions, more empty ship would be less mass, but all the superfluous blocks used for decorations in an RP ship will still make the Useful Mass to Wasted Mass ratio worse than an equal mass ship designed for PVP efficiency.

    At first glance, you might think, "Aha, now there is an empty space, because of the forced stabilizer distance!" but then, I'd put shields or weapon modules in that space now on my pvp ship, versus a bunch of extra mass worth of decorations and logic thingies and doors that you might think this would open up the possibility for, either that or just completely not use the forced empty space to keep mass lower... This problem can't be solved with this method, sadly, I know there are a few different sides to the argument, but some are only arguing because they haven't actually thought about it or have some ulterior motives, like simple bias/favoritism, etc...
    But just really think about it... Unless all the RP decoration blocks have zero AHP, SHP, armor, and mass, they're still going to reduce the efficiency for the mass... But then if you have blocks like that, people will use them as ablative to absorb damage with, unless you make some special property to them where weapons treat them like air for block penetration and missiles, but I dunno.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: jw608