New Power DEV Thread

[Top 4ce]

As you know, there are at least three competing kinds of builder.

The first sort of builder builds because they need a ship to fly around in to do other things. This might not be the most skilled builder in the world, and to this person the requirement for stabilizers is "stupid and adds nothing to gameplay" because it's just one more hoop they have to jump through to get a working ship that they can use for other things, and it adds nothing to their gameplay because they are more interested in doing other things besides building. This kind of player is most interested in innovations that reduce the amount of time they spend doing things that are more like chores rather than fun. For this player, the new reactions are a step in the right direction but the system still isn't quite where they'd like to see it.

The second sort of builder is an RP builder. They will spend hours and hours making interiors and exteriors, and carefully consider that the appearance of their ship is exactly how they want it. For this player, the requirement for stabilizers is "stupid and adds nothing to gameplay" because it's a mechanical consideration that constrains the appearance of their ship a lot more than the previous system did. If they want their ship to actually be useful in game play, it's a serious consideration and it can prevent them from building the ship they want to build. This kind of player is most interested in innovations that reduce the number of limitations they have regarding ship design, and the new reactor systems are a step BACKWARDS for this player.

The third sort of builder is the optimizer. You see a lot of PVP players lean towards this end of the spectrum. Their interest is in making the most mechanically efficient ship they can given the constraints of the game, and they typically only care a little bit if it's ugly (a so-called "doom cube"). For this player, the requirement for stabilizers is "stupid and adds nothing to gameplay" because they are interested in having the most skill-dependent mechanical systems possible so that they can master those systems and get an advantage over their opponents. As counter-intuitive as it is, this player benefits most from having obscenely complicated mechanics that add "depth" and keep the player interested in discovering new and better loopholes, bugs and exploits. This player's goals are directly at odds with the casual builder because to them, the casual builder is prey, and the bigger the divide between skilled and unskilled, the more it benefits the PVP'er. This kind of player is most interested in innovations that add complexity to game play, and the new reactor systems are a step backwards because they simplify power generation.

As the second sort of builder, who also knows the previous system very well, this new system is not a step backwards. It's actually a step forward. Even though stabilizers give a restriction, it's eliminated other restrictions and allowed for less blocks to make a function ship. Chambers gives us options for more RP purpose of a ship.

For the optimizer, the new systems gives a lot of options through chambers for depth.

The issue here is the point of stabilizers, its just an arbitrary block that has a single purpose to balance another block without actually doing anything.

 

[kulbolen]

The issue here is the point of stabilizers, its just an arbitrary block that has a single purpose to balance another block without actually doing anything.

this issue is core to the new system.

 

[Panpiper]

The third sort of builder is the optimizer. You see a lot of PVP players lean towards this end of the spectrum. Their interest is in making the most mechanically efficient ship they can given the constraints of the game, and they typically only care a little bit if it's ugly (a so-called "doom cube"). For this player, the requirement for stabilizers is "stupid and adds nothing to gameplay" because they are interested in having the most skill-dependent mechanical systems possible so that they can master those systems and get an advantage over their opponents. As counter-intuitive as it is, this player benefits most from having obscenely complicated mechanics that add "depth" and keep the player interested in discovering new and better loopholes, bugs and exploits. This player's goals are directly at odds with the casual builder because to them, the casual builder is prey, and the bigger the divide between skilled and unskilled, the more it benefits the PVP'er. This kind of player is most interested in innovations that add complexity to game play, and the new reactor systems are a step backwards because they simplify power generation.

You are correct except for one extremely important point, "the casual builder is prey". Most PvP players are not in the slightest bit interested in preying upon casual players. There is utterly no challenge in it. They ARE however the ones most likely to come to your rescue when you get jumped by the bully in his newb cube of doom.

 

[nightrune]

The issue here is the point of stabilizers, its just an arbitrary block that has a single purpose to balance another block without actually doing anything.

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

 

[diremage]

As the second sort of builder, who also knows the previous system very well, this new system is not a step backwards. It's actually a step forward. Even though stabilizers give a restriction, it's eliminated other restrictions and allowed for less blocks to make a function ship. Chambers gives us options for more RP purpose of a ship.

For the optimizer, the new systems gives a lot of options through chambers for depth.

The issue here is the point of stabilizers, its just an arbitrary block that has a single purpose to balance another block without actually doing anything.

I was trying to specifically address stabilizers and why they are "stupid and add nothing to gameplay." It sort of sounds like you agree with me on that point.

I agree that chambers could be pretty cool.

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

I don't see stabilizers as essential to play. They contribute nothing positive to a ship design, they only penalize you if you don't include them.

You are correct except for one extremely important point, "the casual builder is prey". Most PvP players are not in the slightest bit interested in preying upon casual players. There is utterly no challenge in it. They ARE however the ones most likely to come to your rescue when you get jumped by the bully in his newb cube of doom.

Unfortunately, the bullies in the doom cubes are ALSO pvp'ers, and there are specific factions of pvp groups that specialize in maximizing their ability to exploit bugs and perform non-traditional PVP. Those are also players and if we aren't going to kick them out we have to acknowledge that they have legitimate preferences for how to play.

 

[StormWing0]

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.

So much this right here. Move the min end not the whole thing. This way there's a larger range of areas we can put stabilizers instead of a very narrow range.

 

[Top 4ce]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

I don't see stabilizers as essential to play. They contribute nothing positive to a ship design, they only penalize you if you don't include them.

Boiled down, exactly what diremage said. Stabilizers as a balancing necessity is understandable, but outside of that they don't provide the player with anything useful.

 

[Zoolimar]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

I don't see many things that stabilizers give which could not be achieved through reactors alone.

 

[Batavium]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

I did not add to this thread but i look at it as going from Rails back to Docking Modules and Dock Enhancers.

 

[Panpiper]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

The ONLY thing stabilizers do right now is limit power to ship size, to force high power ships to be bigger than low power ships. However the manner in which they do so creates a massive incentive to build long, thin dumbbells or worse, long thin oblique ships.

The problem is that only the longest dimension counts. In theory this could be addressed by making stabilizer effectiveness the sum of all three dimensions, so players could put six points of stabilizers at their maximum XYZ points and gain from any and all dimensions. This 'would' fix the one dimension oblique dumbbell issue. Unfortunately we would then be back to the doomcube issue in which ships closest to full cubes would again hold the advantage (though we might also see rings surrounding a needle and 3D crosses as well).

Alternatively, get rid of stabilizer distance entirely. Make reactor blocks explode from damage (which you should do regardless). Make stabilizers counter this. The downside to that is that people will again be tempted to fill their ships with blocks (which in my opinion has never been an issue that needed fixing). Putting the crew and quarters system into the game however would neatly fix the 'problem' of solid ships.

 

[Mork2]

How about if there was no red area for the stabilisers and only orange and green. That way you could uses stabilisers as filler instead of shield blocks. Enough of them will balance the reactor out. The casual player just puts more stabilisers next to the reactor, the RP player just fills in areas out of sight and use them as filler (shield amount will suffer as a consequence). The min/maxers will do as they have always done which is min/max whatever system they working with.

I usually fit into the min/maxer group. I use to use modular power cores so my 500k mass ship could radar jam while fighting. The chamber system makes it easier to do what I use to do before. You could even perma stealth a capital. I use to be able to do more before with the old mechanics though with more design. But I do like the chamber system with upgrades. For some of the ships I've put together versions with or without chambers.

Considering the increase in firepower I hope we will retain the defensive effects as well as the chamber system to make something a bit more tanky as a balance.

So far simple ships, cargo and mining ships are arranged easy. Put system blocks in front of core (salvage beams, weapons etc.), put stabilisers in front of that. Put cargo/shields and other systems behind the core. Put the reactor right at the back with room for the chambers around it. Use ship and adjust reactor size to suit. Then add the chambers. I layer the thrusters around the hull.

 

[Scypio]

The ONLY thing stabilizers do right now is limit power to ship size

Just this.

You can ofc reduce the needed amount of space between reactors and stabilizers to a point where it doesn't affect at all ship's shape but then this question comes to my mind. Why do we needed stabilizers at all ?

 

[Ithirahad]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

Depends on what you mean. If you're asking whether or not they are currently essential... uhm, have you tried the recent builds? Reactors above five blocks do nothing without stabilizers. This is contrary to my expectations, actually; I envisioned that for a given ship size a smaller reactor and a given amount of stabilizers would give more power for less mass, occupied space, and cost than a bigger reactor, but a bigger reactor could work decently too. I hope that the current setup is not final.
[doublepost=1507503819,1507503630][/doublepost]

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).

That's nice, but nearly everyone who's analyzed the system is saying the same thing. Unless there's some reason that hasn't occurred to anyone, the general consensus is that (in their current iteration and method of balancing) the stabilizer mechanic is questionable at very best. That feedback-gathering method has its merits, but adequate discussion can't be had if we don't know the goals behind what's being tested. If we had those, we might be able to properly discuss balance, offer solutions, or discuss whether or not that goal is even achievable or desirable. As it stands, all we can do is see something that seems badly-designed and call all of you at Schine dumb or whatever. :P

 

[bricox01]

I myself am an aesthetic builder first and a min-maxer second and pvp-er never. I do want my ships to be as powerful as they can be for their size and shape though. The current ratios for reactors, stabilizers, and chambers have not improved my builds, but nor have they made them worse.

I like to build more powerful pirates than the Isanths the game ships with and fight those. I need a decently min-maxed ship to do that.
[doublepost=1507504412,1507504013][/doublepost]I tend to listen carefully to the advice of the pvp-ers when it comes to system and weapon designs as they know the nuances of the mechanics better than I do.

Because I balance aesthetics and performance, I don't see min-maxing as an issue until everyone is forced to play on a single server.

 

[Dire Venom]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

Thank you for being so open to feedback!
There is a lot of good discussion here.
I personaly think that stabilizors do have a place, providing value to a ship however their current state struggles to add much to a ship beyond forcing a player to build a certian way because 'reasons'.
I would have a lot less trouble with them if they could be placed anywhere on the ship (I fail to see why a distance mechanic is necessary), like how if you need more thrust you add a bunch more thrusters on your ship, and provided alternate benefits.

I think reactors should be able to run just fine without stabilizers, however at a cost. E.g like the Auxillary power blocks, which would make it a strategic choice on defense vs offense. Do you want to be more vunrable and have more offensive potiential, or have a safer reactor but a larger and slower ship?
So far I heavily favor the suggestion for reactor blocks to become more volitile the larger the group, and stabilizers to counteract that while providing some other benefit.
(rather than you have to place this block down in x y z way or your ship will not function)

On a second note, I'm curious as what will become of power storage in the future. Maybe stabilizers will have a place there in an alternate storage mechanic?

 

[kikaha]

I've been refitting my ships with the new power system.

I'm more of a RP builder but i do like my vessels to be more than decent at combat.

I was pleased when it was said that with that new power system i'd use less blocks do achieve the same result power wise and also, because of less animated blocks i should get a increase in FPS.

Well, i still find myself stuffing my ships to the brim wherever it is not RP dedicated.

I like that power system. I want those stabilizers because RP wise they are great for immersion, telling stories... I want those chambers for the same reasons.
The distance i don't mind at all.

What bother me is that i still have to use a huge amount of blocks to have use of all the systems already in place on my ships.

I would suggest to increase 10 fold the power output, stabilization potential and chamber efficiency; The blocks themselves should of course be really, really expensive to make. Hell ! If thats not enough they should require some sort of ingredient to fonction (i did not say fuel)

Also, please fix the AI asap because for testing the ships it is not possible with broken AI and wonky, borky, porky, more than rubish aiming.

And get rid of this green overlay that prevent you from seeing what you're doing.

Edit : Question... Do i need to power my turret docks in a special way ? Cuz none of them except anti missile turrets can move...

 

[Jarraff]

nightrune is there any plans to make multiple groups of stabilizers serve the same reactor?

 

[Lucidess]

How could you not have stabilizers for this power system? It would simply be OP if they didn't exist.

Also, could you not have ridiculous requirements for the chamber system? What is this charged circuit stuff, just give up the idea of making it a MMO RPG (no leveling up) and just give us our 3 tier tech tree and effects, no weird strings attached. Let us open the chamber menu by highlighting any chamber and pushing r, let us see how many chambers we need on screen as we place blocks, make the chamber menu better so it isn't all squished at the top when specifying chambers. There is so much information to be shown that the whole ui is not showing until we either scroll or try out each and every chamber. All very minor fixes for way less stress.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

I'm not a fan. The distance=%functional thing is so-so gimmick, but it's really quick to transition from 100% to worthless over 5 blocks. A more gradual gradient would help iron out the hatred.

If stabilizers were done away with and chambers themselves had distance=%functional mechanic ported over it might do the same thing re; size:power.

 

[bricox01]

Ok let me ask a different question then. Do players in this thread view stabilizers as essential to play? And why?

I'm going to say no. Stabilizers add little more than what seems like an artificial limitation or mechanic to the power system.

I think setting a maximum size versus efficiency threshold may be a better solution. You could do it as a series of threshols as well, all in a config file for easy editing by server admins.

For the example following, I'm going to use numbers pulled out of my butt for the sake of illustrating what I mean.

For example, let's assume 1 power reactor block gave 250 e/sec as a starting point.
100% efficiency up to 100 reactor blocks
90% efficiency up to 200 reactor blocks
80% efficiency up to 400 reactor blocks
And so on until we reach 10 or 0 percent. As soon as the system reaches the last entry, whether it is 100, 99, 1, or 0%, the system would then continue infinitely at that efficiency per block added.

More when I get home.

Home...and a few days later...

The system above keeps everything but stabilizers. It also eliminates dimensions from consideration of ship power design.

It also makes server customization a breeze because you would have a power section in block behaviour that would allow the admin the ability to set thresholds and hard caps quickly and easily. Some metrics I recommend are:

Threshold Count: allows the game to know how many thresholds to expect

Power per Block: Obvious

Power Block Hard Cap: allows the admin to set a hard limit on count of power blocks

Volatility: 0.00 to 1.00 the percent chance of a reactor block blowing up and damaging adjacent reactor blocks should it receive significant damage

However, I do like Panpiper's idea that system blocks are inherently unstable and that stabilizers reduce their volatility.