New rail docker: docked reactor

[starhaiden]

Basically a rail Docker that transfer power from the docked entity to the mothership with about 90% efficiency.
Could have a major drawback.
e.g. the physics of the blocks on the docked ship change to that of the explosive block (if possible).

 

[Batavium]

e.g. the physics of the blocks on the docked ship change to that of the explosive block (if possible).

This needs a little further explanation. What is it exactly your proposing? Docked reactors that transfer their generated energy with the use of an energy beam to the main part of the ship are allready a thing. They use logic to drive the energy beam. There are even shield recharge variants.

There drawback is collision but the new update might have adressed some of it. Though maybe letting rails default to static non movement might help in this part. The rail speed controller would then not just control the speed but also if it moves at all. As in no movement without a rail speed contoller.

 

[NeonSturm]

There are even shield recharge variants.

Shields apply under-combat if they are recharging the mothership or if the mothership is under attack. Except for additionally requiring shield-capacitors or let docked ships such as mining ships on a carrier help the main ship to recover, all use have been stripped from them.

There drawback is collision but the new update might have adressed some of it.

Once ago, I made 23^3 cube reactors, but they proofed too inefficient per block count due to not using all advantages from dimensions.

Then I made a 127x7x7 reactor, but it was difficult to dock (dock area required more space (9x9x9 with one enhancer) than the reactor.
Rails could fix the docking-issue at least (so that you don't get kicked for crashing into large ships).

But independent on how you look at it - build-in reactors are more flexible in shape and more efficient most of the times.
Especially if the reactor does not transfer energy, but if it is inbuilt into a wing and directly feeds the turrets.
____
¯¯¯¯
One thing which I'd like to know is there has some way been added to not only check the shield/power-percentage (display module) but also feed that information into logic (to control supply beams).

It would be nice if you could drop armour plates when they are essentially dead to gain move-speed or equalize shield power rather than just transferring it without question as long as the receiver can receive it,

I think about a way to calculate power supply and requirements with logic.
Low power? Subtract shield energy from the weapon-wing.
Low trust? Subtract shield energy from the armour plates and prepare ejecting the most damaged ones.

 

[Batavium]

all use have been stripped from them.

Add shields to the main part but no recharge. Add a docked shield recharge reactor. Let it charge the main shield. Under combat no penalty because there is no recharge. Down side shield recharge reactors transfer way less then energy reactors.

But independent on how you look at it - build-in reactors are more flexible in shape and more efficient most of the times.
Especially if the reactor does not transfer energy, but if it is inbuilt into a wing and directly feeds the turrets.
____

My Enhanced Pocket Battleship needs 6 docked power reactors to move without powerloss. It's very heavy because of a lot of advanced armor. This is thanks to the cargo update that added weight to mass and your personal inventory. Before that the ship didn't have power issues.

On my new builds i now mostly use normal armor to get the weight down as much as possible. So the ships are able to perma radarjam.

One thing which I'd like to know is there has some way been added to not only check the shield/power-percentage (display module) but also feed that information into logic (to control supply beams).

As far as i know this isn't possible. But you would get into Star Trek territory this way! Divert all engine power to the shields Scotty!

 

[NeonSturm]

Add shields to the main part but no recharge. Add a docked shield recharge reactor. Let it charge the main shield. Under combat no penalty because there is no recharge. Down side shield recharge reactors transfer way less then energy reactors.

Another secret cheat?

My Enhanced Pocket Battleship needs 6 docked power reactors to move without powerloss. It's very heavy because of a lot of advanced armor. This is thanks to the cargo update that added weight to mass and your personal inventory. Before that the ship didn't have power issues.

One thing which I'd like to know is there has some way been added to not only check the shield/power-percentage (display module) but also feed that information into logic (to control supply beams).

As far as i know this isn't possible. But you would get into Star Trek territory this way! Divert all engine power to the shields Scotty!

StaraMade is getting worse, is it getting better too?

I really want logic that knows what you know (as long as you can define it as higher/lower than x or x%).
If I don't get this, there is much hot air around logic without much use other than 1990-computer RP or playing around with 20x20x20m parts.

 

[Batavium]

In a sandbox game we all stur up the sand our own way. People learn from encounters and from just playing in a Multi player environment. Most of these things regulate them selfs. You start building differently to cope with threats. This is what i find so compelling about StarMade. You never know what your gona face. An endless cycle of trying to outbuild the competition. And i am a big fan of the better ship wins rather than the biggest.

StarMade is progressing sometimes in ways that turn out to not be so beneficial. But then we the angry mob can point this out. :pFrustration mounts if things that seem simple or long overdue take foreever to implement. "simple lock on a chest shop options tab" "blueprints default to enemy use is still on on default" "border around a server map so it doesn't get 32GB in size" etc etc.

But all joking a side I think the team behind it is working very hard and they do care about our input. Things don't often go as intended. See the resent monster Asteroids. Servers crumble under failed updates. It's owners often forking out hunderts of dollars/euros a month to keep them online. When people stop hosting the game then the game dies! The small team behind StarMade has come a long way. StarMade has come a long way. I simply love this game.

 

[NeonSturm]

People learn from encounters and from just playing in a Multi player environment. Most of these things regulate them selfs. You start building differently to cope with threats.

I love that too, but I would like it much more if I could program the advanced build mode to automatically use it when I want to use it.
Right now I have the choice of either making my game from scratch or waiting until SM-devs implement it (which might take another half or year).

Back in the time I used Word-Macros (Visual Basic 6), I made UIs and code. With JavaScript, I made UI, code and even animated objects. With html+css I made a lot of UI. But I can't do this in Java or C++ because I have not found any implementation satisfying in performance usability

Spoiler: But I still collect code snippets for it

I am sure if someone teaches me how to get Shaders, Java, html and all that hardware-dependent audio and graphic configuration stuff SM already solved together, I might learn it in 1 month.
But then, even if I make a game "like StarMade" with everything modified in my own way, I would fight SM-devs and they would fight me instead of a cooperative environment where everyone can make profit without hurting the other.
(I would change reactor-patterns, backup systems for big ships required, thrust-modification only in shipyards by turning thruster-arrays, a goal-orientated self-fixing molecular assembling, better logic first, regenerative armour instead of shields, shields is just hardening above certain blocks - that just comes into my mind right now).

 

[jayman38]

I would prefer it be a control computer that creates a group that falls "outside" the standard ship limits, so that it becomes a solid, non-moving part of the ship (in other words, part of the ship's own block grid, instead of a rail-attached separate entity grid.) The reactor blocks that are linked to that control computer can add up to 1.6 M maximum energy (This limit is entirely arbitrary, can be different in the game, and should be server-configurable) for that computer, which in turn adds that energy level to the ship's basic energy levels, as if the group were a docked reactor.

Expand the idea by allowing shield sharing or any other block (E.g. Cloaking blocks, jump drive blocks, shield blocks, weapon blocks, anything.)

The nerf? Make that computer control block target-able individually as a "subsystem". And if that control block is destroyed, all linked system blocks are inactive and don't add to the ship at all.

There are many ways control computers could be "abused" by builders, including adding a bunch of computers and mis-labeled computers (I think they should be label-able, like transporters) to confuse enemies.

Basically, "Control" computers would be a way to have docked reactors without all the game-hobbling lag.

 

[NeonSturm]

I would prefer it be a control computer that creates a group that falls "outside" the standard ship limits, so that it becomes a solid, non-moving part of the ship (in other words, part of the ship's own block grid, instead of a rail-attached separate entity grid.) The reactor blocks that are linked to that control computer can add up to 1.6 M maximum energy (This limit is entirely arbitrary, can be different in the game, and should be server-configurable) for that computer, which in turn adds that energy level to the ship's basic energy levels, as if the group were a docked reactor.

Expand the idea by allowing shield sharing or any other block (E.g. Cloaking blocks, jump drive blocks, shield blocks, weapon blocks, anything.)

The nerf? Make that computer control block target-able individually as a "subsystem". And if that control block is destroyed, all linked system blocks are inactive and don't add to the ship at all.

There are many ways control computers could be "abused" by builders, including adding a bunch of computers and mis-labeled computers (I think they should be label-able, like transporters) to confuse enemies.

Basically, "Control" computers would be a way to have docked reactors without all the game-hobbling lag.

Or basically remove the soft-cap per entity, but make a soft-cap for individual arrays?

I think any ship larger than an escape pod should have a second reactor. Any ship larger than a 2-4 person fighter (including NPCs) should have 3 reactors.
If larger reactors become more "unstable" by increasing the cycle of power-generation from 1sec/10 to 10sec, but will become more stable again if multiple are linked to the same computer, you can archive that.

I don't think that spaming labelled computers should be encouraged. I'd suggest a scanner which sorts these spam labels by the number of connected thrust/energy and hope that this dirty-patch for the problem will be applied or the spam-reason removed.

 

[jayman38]

Or basically remove the soft-cap per entity, but make a soft-cap for individual arrays?
...
I don't think that spaming labelled computers should be encouraged. I'd suggest a scanner which sorts these spam labels by the number of connected thrust/energy and hope that this dirty-patch for the problem will be applied or the spam-reason removed.

Excellent! Requiring scanners to sense subsytems is a great addition. (I don't think we need a second type of scanner.) Sorting by block count per computer sounds like a great way to defeat spamming and give players an easy way to prioritize targets while encouraging recreation of existing designs and general roleplay design. I love it.

I still think that there should be a soft-cap for non-computer-controlled reactors. Otherwise, gigantism is encouraged and combat-oriented builders will never use control computers at all.