New Power DEV Thread

[Ithirahad]

when we change something it doesn't fundamentally break user creations (I know the irony in that based on this breaking change, we did not chose to do this lightly), and that it is balance-able.

There may well be a noticeable variance in achievable power levels between ships of the same size (volume/former mass), depending on their shape. Does that not count as breaking user creations?

 

[nightrune]

There may well be a noticeable variance in achievable power levels between ships of the same size (volume/former mass), depending on their shape. Does that not count as breaking user creations?

No I don't think so. We can review the numbers as the system becomes more stable. The difference between one and two power blocks might be double but might not be doubly effective.

 

[Panpiper]

No I don't think so. We can review the numbers as the system becomes more stable. The difference between one and two power blocks might be double but might not be doubly effective.

Wait a minute, you DO NOT think there will be a noticeable difference between two ships of equal mass where one happens to be long and thin and the other happens to be short and stumpy? The long and thin ship will be able to have SUBSTANTIALLY more power than will the short and stumpy ship, because the distance between power modules and stabilizers will be substantial, permitting the longer ship to have a significantly larger quantity of power modules.

 

[nightrune]

Wait a minute, you DO NOT think there will be a noticeable difference between two ships of equal mass where one happens to be long and thing and the other happens to be short and stumpy? The long and thin ship will be able to have SUBSTANTIALLY more power than will the short and stumpy ship, because the distance between power modules and stabilizers will be substantial, permitting the longer ship to have a significantly larger quantity of power modules.

Hard to refute quantity of power. I said more effective. That remains to be seen.

 

[Az14el]

If that's true then what exactly are stabilizers balancing? if they're a mechanic involving an optimal use of dimensions but said dimensions wouldn't make a meaningful difference efficiency wise.. help us out here

 

[StormWing0]

Hard to refute quantity of power. I said more effective. That remains to be seen.

Why not pull something similar with stabilizers that we did with the old power system needing to go for multiple axis'? Say make having stabilizers on one axis the option not the rule and so that the 0% range is much closer to the reactor to allow for brute forcing 100% stable power? Also reactors shouldn't just suddenly drop to providing no power after a certain point it should gradually reduce so stabilizers aren't fully required to get mid sized to large reactors working.

 

[Top 4ce]

Its does mostly what players have pointed out. It limits the amount of power you can have in a specific ship. So far its working as designed. Depending on how we scale the blocks and ratios you'll have more or less space from blocks on the config. Except for a few anomaly's we can effectively control how much power given a specific ship size. From our viewpoint, we need to balance not only combat but ship roles as well. Chambers seem very effective at that, but in the initial chambers rely on the stabilizer mechanic working. We understand some players believe this to not be the case, and that having empty space shouldn't actually be empty space (i.e. crew areas).

As far as a ship that uses a far distance to maximize power, We understand that its an odd(immersion) issue to allow within the system, and will monitor the ships that get built. On paper that seems to be a rather strong build. We'll need to see how it players out with the mix of chambers.

My question is, and has been, how much more effective should a well designed ship be compared to a poorly designed ship. What does it mean to be poorly designed and what does it mean to be well designed. I see many discussions in many threads over this area. I would love to see a wealth of equally viable ships, but alas a game is built on a series of functions/math so there may always be an optimal solution. The key for Schine as game designers is to build a system in such a way that, when we change something it doesn't fundamentally break user creations (I know the irony in that based on this breaking change, we did not chose to do this lightly), and that it is balance-able.

So please continue to dissect, discussion, and document your findings within the system. I love seeing the brainstorming people do as they come up with what they can do with a certain ship and systems.

I agree it's working as designed. My issue is that stabilizers should do something other than be a simple block that needs to be in the ship. Brainstorming with some guys, we like the idea of having power generators volatile unless you fully stabilize. Giving you a risk reward for them.

But I don't care what stabilizers do, I just want them to do something other than being a block you NEED. Give me a reason for me to want them in my ship.

As for the dimension argument, I still think the simplest solution is the one I mentioned before:

One of the ideas I've heard floating around to make the dimension requirement less of on issue (SchnellBier and Ithirahad I think), was to make the "orange" area of the stabilizers larger. If there's more orange area than you can still stabilize, by using more blocks, without having a large minimum distance needed.

Still have the red distance but make it closer, and have a larger orange area. This allows one to brute force stabilization if dimensions are restricted for the ship.

 

[Edymnion]

I agree it's working as designed. My issue is that stabilizers should do something other than be a simple block it needs to be in the ship. Brainstorming with some guys, we like the idea of having power generators volatile unless you fully stabilize. Giving you a risk reward for them.

Oh I like this idea.

Power without stabilizers could do something like produce anywhere from 50% to 150% "normal" power at random so that you can never tell how much power you will actually have available. The stabilizers then reduce that uncertainty range down to the average 100% of normal and let it sit there so that you always know how much power you have available.

 

[Cluwne]

Edymnion
That's actually a pretty neat idea.
Without stabilizers reactors output 50-100% more power but become highly volatile as a result. (Read: no reactor HP buff from stabilizers + AUX-like chain explosions)
Stabilizers act as safeguards that reduce the output but make reactors much safer and increase the reactor HP.

 

[Edymnion]

Or maybe we could steal a mechanic from the aux power we had before, and take a line from Star Trek to justify it.

In ST:DS9 they had a ship called the Defiant. It was essentially a gunboat strapped onto a high power warp reactor. They mentioned on screen several times that this class of ship was so powerful it basically shook itself apart on a regular basis so that it needed constant upkeep.

What if reactors without stabilizers sent damage pulses out towards systems using power, like the old aux power blocks did when damaged?

A reactor without stabilizers generates a LOT more power, but so much so it starts overloading systems and damaging them.

Stabilizers reduce the power output, but remove the damage.

Would make for an interesting combat target too. Could try to aim for the reactor for a quick kill, or you could aim for stabilizers to make the reactor overheat and start blowing out systems.
[doublepost=1507648840,1507648355][/doublepost]Would make for some good design for disposable drones, IMO.

No stabilizers in the drones, means you can have a super powerful reactor to fuel really big guns. The fact that the lack of stabilizers would burn out their systems wouldn't really matter because they were disposable one use deals to begin with.

 

[kulbolen]

I've seen this a few times. Can we dig a little deeper into, stupid and adds nothing to game play? We have our reasons for keeping them that I'll hold onto for awhile (We hold onto information because untainted/raw comments are the best kind of comments/feedback).

Its does mostly what players have pointed out. It limits the amount of power you can have in a specific ship. So far its working as designed. Depending on how we scale the blocks and ratios you'll have more or less space from blocks on the config. Except for a few anomaly's we can effectively control how much power given a specific ship size. F

is this the reason you were holding onto? everyone posting here knew this from the start.

 

[jw608]

I like the idea of unstable reactors being, well, unstable. I really like the idea of unstable reactors producing extra power (in fact I was talking to Top and Lenscap about that just yesterday) but at a cost. While I like the idea of them basically becoming warheads, which would present interesting defensive and offensive possibilities (e.g. kamikaze fighters) what if an unstable reactor that has run too long acted like a star? That is it produced heat damage like a star does, and as the reactor is run above safe levels it generates more and more heat, damaging the ship from the inside out. Stabilizers then could act like a power governor keeping the reactors in the safe zone. Or a partially stabilized reactor could allow a ship to get just a portion above the safe zone.

I don't know if it's feasible, or even a good idea. But I agree that stabilizers would be better, or at least more interesting if I was given a choice on how/if to use them.

 

[Edymnion]

what if an unstable reactor that has run too long acted like a star?

This would also be cool. Especially if we had some seriously heavy shielding blocks that prevented heat damage.

You could have stabilizers to keep the reactor from running hot, or you could build your reactor inside a case of heavy shielding to protect the rest of the ship.

 

[jw608]

This would also be cool. Especially if we had some seriously heavy shielding blocks that prevented heat damage.

You could have stabilizers to keep the reactor from running hot, or you could build your reactor inside a case of heavy shielding to protect the rest of the ship.

Or both! In a front line battleship you could have 100% stabilizers, but also build a reactor shield as backup for when your stabilizers get shot out.

 

[Edymnion]

Ooh man, the possibilities this opens up are great.

Imagine an overheating reactor torpedo. You're basically lobbing miniature stars at the target to do heat damage to them while bypassing their shields.

 

[Panpiper]

I think people are missing the point. The whole reason the old build system has been tossed out and everything is being redone, is to DUMB DOWN the build system. They are not going to introduce new mechanics to make it more complicated. They want casual players to be able to master the build system well enough that they can compete on an equal footing with the most hard core of PvP builders. The fact that most of the hard core PvPers will likely move on to a different game that 'does' challenge, does not seem to concern them.

 

[Lecic]

Their tactics indicate very two-dimensional thinking...

nightrune

Your problem is that you (and apparently everyone else at Schine if past dev statements are anything to go by) are attempting to balance based off DIMENSIONS and the idea that people will stick to solid, aesthetics oriented shells. This is, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen a developer team do.

Dimensions mean NOTHING to the meta player and hulls do not need to be continuous or even exist. Block count and mass are ALL THAT MATTERS. We WARNED YOU that these dumbbells and chandeliers and floating grids would happen if you did this, and you did it anyway.

We trusted you to abandon the idiotic heat boxes of the original proposal, but you just renamed them to stabilizer distance! You have shown complete disregard for the advice given to you by dozens of experienced meta players who foresaw this exact scenario arising.

 

[Top 4ce]

Their tactics indicate very two-dimensional thinking...

nightrune

Your problem is that you (and apparently everyone else at Schine if past dev statements are anything to go by) are attempting to balance based off DIMENSIONS and the idea that people will stick to solid, aesthetics oriented shells. This is, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen a developer team do.

Dimensions mean NOTHING to the meta player and hulls do not need to be continuous or even exist. Block count and mass are ALL THAT MATTERS. We WARNED YOU that these dumbbells and chandeliers and floating grids would happen if you did this, and you did it anyway.

We trusted you to abandon the idiotic heat boxes of the original proposal, but you just renamed them to stabilizer distance! You have shown complete disregard for the advice given to you by dozens of experienced meta players who foresaw this exact scenario arising.

Try making that (valid) argument again, but without all the aggression. Because yelling at the devs isn't constructive.

 

[Edymnion]

I think people are missing the point. The whole reason the old build system has been tossed out and everything is being redone, is to DUMB DOWN the build system.

We didn't forget, we just don't agree with you and are tired of arguing with you about it.

The fact that most of the hard core PvPers will likely move on to a different game that 'does' challenge, does not seem to concern them.

Good. The game will become much better once they do.

 

[jw608]

I thought the point was to remove the cryptic power puzzle and replace it with a more robust power system that is easier to understand, which doesn't mean dumber. And from what I've seen so far of the Dev build the system is much more complex and easier to understand at the same time. But that's just me.