New Thruster Block

[Playerwolf]

I got this idea because I don't like the idea that depending on how someone build his ship you can't immobilise it. You could just distribute the thruster modules all over the ship. So I thougt about a thrusters-core-block where you connect the thrusters to, to get the full potential out of them. If they aren't connected (physical) with the core-block or a chain of thruster-blocks that is connected with the core block you just get a lower effect from them e.g. 30%. Additional the thruster must be near to the core-block e.g. in a cube of 4 blocks in each direction. A core-block should cost about as much as 20/10 thrusters to prevent people use a lot of them to spread their thrusters with core-block around their ship.
To free small ships that doesn't need as much thrusters as a core-block can deal with and for the decorative use the first 100 thrusters should be free from this condition.

Edit:
When I mentioned "core-block" I meant a NEW "Thruster-core-block" which would work like a weaponcomputer and gives people a target when they want to aim at the thrustersystem.
(sorry for the confusion)

 

[Lecic]

If you want to immobilize a ship, use stop effect weapons. Stop works best on rapid fire weapons with multiple outputs. I recommend a waffleboard of either cannon/cannon/stop or beam/cannon/stop.

 

[jayman38]

I want to like this idea, but it's just too easy to immobilize someone with a missile hit to the core, which would disconnect anything connected to the core. Besides, the "core" is becoming less important, to the point of becoming merely the first block of the ship. I would like this suggestion, if (A) the suggestion included control computers for thruster systems and (B) they were targetable as a subsystem. That way, a builder can put in as many thrust computers as they desire for changing the efficiency/vulnerability ratio, we support a subsystem meta which is used in almost all SciFi media, and we continue the migration of importance away from the core (drilling).

More control computers = slightly fewer thrusters = much less vulnerability = slightly less efficiency

 

[sayerulz]

Why not just give systems their own individual system HP pools? Destroy X percentage of a ships thrusters, then the other ones stop working. Could apply to all systems.

Or, barring that, nail them with a lot of stop effect and possibly some EMP.

 

[Croquelune]

I don't like at all the idea to force bound thruster to the core :

1. cause of what said jayman38
   
2. more would be really restrictive for design

But like him I'm not against the idea to have a variable on thruster blocks to make them more efficiency, I'd even rather pro.

Why ? Because with the actual thruster system we only just have to disseminate and scatter thruster blocks in order to hide them and prevents their destruction in mass, and so, prevent structural ship immobilization. This integrity gain is extremely easily to acquire and applies without counterparty. Thereby no thruster units are clearly identifiable, so aimable, so thrusters aren't real weak spots that they desserve to be (as much for role play reasons, than gameplay reasons).

While if it does, for example, something a bit like weapon systems but with the add of idea that the squarer/rectangler & voluminous thruster entities are the more effective they are. It'll encourages players to concentrate thruster system to accumulate thruster power and so, like power reactor module, have to deal with the dilemma : more effective thruster but more vulnerable or less effective thruster but less vulnerable.

But in orders to not penalize too much multiple thrusters units ship or creation of back-up thruster unit. I think the effectiveness ratio should be something like a hyperbolic exponential decay. Example :

(I use whatever value but just in purpose you got the idea)

1 thruster system unit of 1000 blocks = 100% effectiveness
2 seperated thruster system unit of 500 blocks = 99.9%
8 seperated thruster system unit of 125 blocks = 95%
125 seperated thruster system unit of 8 blocks = 25%
1000 seperated thruster system unit of 1 blocks = 1%

This thing apply just for thruster of one entity, docked thrusters unit have no influence in this calculation.

Pros :
1) Create a new variable to handle while designing ship. (new puzzle to solve = better gameplay)
2) Alike generator, create a true weakness in ship with the thruster use. (new critical ship part to optimize and defend = better gameplay/roleplay)
3) Create a balance lever between concentrated and spreaded thruster unit. (At the moment only spreaded design are favored)

Cons :
1) Penalize decorative uses of thruster blocks, specially if used numerously (like chess pattern)

If you want to immobilize a ship, use stop effect weapons.

I guess, he's not thinking about immobilize ship like stun ship but like really disabled it and I'm agree with him on this point. The actual meta sucks for that since the only way to disabled ship is to destroy its reactor(s).
They should be also other ways to disabled it like destroy it's engine and with the actual meta that way isn't possible.

 

[Valck]

But in orders to not penalize too much multiple thrusters units ship or creation of back-up thruster unit. I think the effectiveness ratio should be something like a hyperbolic exponential decay
[...]
Create a new variable to handle while designing ship. (new puzzle to solve = better gameplay)

I agree, however from the looks of it, it may already be configurable to that effect in (custom)blockBehaviorConfig.xml:

<Thruster>
  <BasicValues>
[...]
    <UnitCalcStyle>LINEAR</UnitCalcStyle> <!-- LINEAR, BOX_DIM_MULT, BOX_DIM_ADD -->
    <UnitCalcMult>5.5</UnitCalcMult> <!-- multiplied with result of UnitCalcStyle -->
[...]
  </BasicValues>
</Thruster>

Time to play with BOX_DIM_x and the UnitCalcMult variable...


EDIT:
After some reading up (haven't tested anything yet), it looks like moving away from LINEAR only makes things worse, in the way power systems work now - it's only the box dimensions that count. IDK if some careful tweaking of the various other factors, like using UnitCalcMult as a divisor instead, could make it work to calculate from contiguous volume, but I wouldn't be too optimistic. Some experimentation (or somebody who actually knows how thrust calculations work) is definitely needed.
That said, the setting is already there, maybe it's not that much work to some day add another choice of BOX_VOL_ ?

 

[Playerwolf]

I want to like this idea, but it's just too easy to immobilize someone with a missile hit to the core, which would disconnect anything connected to the core. Besides, the "core" is becoming less important, to the point of becoming merely the first block of the ship. I would like this suggestion, if (A) the suggestion included control computers for thruster systems and (B) they were targetable as a subsystem. That way, a builder can put in as many thrust computers as they desire for changing the efficiency/vulnerability ratio, we support a subsystem meta which is used in almost all SciFi media, and we continue the migration of importance away from the core (drilling).

More control computers = slightly fewer thrusters = much less vulnerability = slightly less efficiency

I guess I didn't thougt enough about what I wrote. What I wanted to say was what you said. When I wrote "core-block" I meant a new "thruster-core-block" which would work like weaponcomputer with weaponmoduls.
(haven't thougt about that there is a block called like this and people misunderstand this)

 

[KuramaFox]

Why not just give systems their own individual system HP pools? Destroy X percentage of a ships thrusters, then the other ones stop working. Could apply to all systems.

Ok, I like this one, though instead of "stop working" perhaps merely a major reduction in effectiveness (like dropping to 20% effect).

It doesn't need to apply to energy production systems since those kind of behave that way already due to the way ideal reactor designs work.