- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 367
Starmade Power System Redesign
01. Foreword:
This one's no less wordy than the usual rants that tend to sprout like mushrooms around here, and quite franky, I'm losing my patience for them, same as you do. So I provided some TLDR for the major points in picture format for ease of assimilation. Then you can decide if the whole thing is worth reading.
02. What's wrong with the old way of things?
- Current system is flawed; Allows for "meta" ships to be vastly more powerful than "RP" ships of similar block count, due to having more power which in turn feed more systems, while using less hull and armor blocks resulting in a lower mass and thus increased mobility. Thus the need for the upcoming change.
03. What is being done to fix this?
-Dev's intent was to somehow tie power generation to ship size, and restore a semblance of balance between super-efficient solid system block ships and more realistic builds.
04. Why is it a bad solution?
-Reactor stabilizers fail at achieving the desired balance, because it favors long and thin ships. You'll get the best power output for your mass by placing your reactor on the far end of your ship on either axis, then placing your stabilizers on the opposite end of the same axis.
-By building a broad ship you'd have greater mass and would have room / need for more systems, yet your reactor can only support so much.
-Reactor in the center and stabilizers in the wings would still give you an inferior output, as for this to be at least as effective as a rear & front placement, your ship'd have to be at least twice as broad as it is long. And then, you'd still get better results by building your reactor on the tip of one wing, and the stabilizers on the other...
-Unless you kill or get killed in a high-alpha strike ambush, opponents usually fight with their prows facing each other. While they do try to manouver out of the other guy's firing arc, it's a pretty safe bet that in an even fight most of the damage you take will be on said prow. Which now houses your reactor stabilizers. Which, now damaged, gimp your power output, and make the already ponderous pace of destroying your foes even slower.
05. My two cents:
Since everyone and their dog is writing up alternative proposals, I'll throw mine out there as well:
-I think we need limitations that make sense, while allowing for the maximum amount of freedom in designing your ship.
- The problem of ships with disproportionally high amounts of power output and system blocks arose because the game allows designs that'd fall apart in reality. A system brick ship is akin to a stripped down rocket engine with guns and a nuclear reactor sticked in it, all without any kind of structural support. Nay, no compartments, not a single plate anywhere. Not even bolts or ducttape. Sounds safe, doesn't it?
06. The Solution:
- If you want to tie a ship's power output and through that, it's ability to feed it's systems, then tie it to the load-bearing capacity of it's hull!
"Duuh! Stuff in space is weightless! You can balance an anvil on top of a matchstick!"
-Yeah. You can. But there's also inertia. The matchstick will break if you try to push the anvil with it.
07. It can be done with minimum effort!
Hull strength is already represented by Armor HP.
Think of the airframe of planes, or the self-carrying armor chassis of tanks. There's a limit to how much weight they can support!
So your Armor HP would decide how many system blocks can you place in your ship.
You can play around with the values; How much capacity does a system block cost? Will you make different kinds of system blocks cost different amounts of capacity?
If the systems eat up a relatively high amount of cap., you'd also solve the issue of "solid ship is best ship" as the ship's structure wouldn't support enough systems to fill it up, thus you could have empty spaces inside without remorse. .......Or just stick a big ol' brick of armor on your rear and call it a day, but meh.
Ofc you'll have to re-balance every system block's performance. ( Ex, now you can have way less thruster blocks than before, so buff their output to avoid crawling around at the speed of a dead space slug.
08. What'll it do?
-The game shouldn't allow you to place system blocks above your hull's capacity to support them.
-If you do have systems over your capacity, either due to hull damage, or having removed a section in build mode, your system blocks would begin dying much the same way as if you flew into a sun -which is already coded! ( and I consider it a much welcome hastening of ship death, which in some cases can get ridiculiously protracted.)
09. Profit
In the end, the "meta" ship will need to do as the "RP" ship does, and use a relatively higher amount of hull and/or armor blocks, lest it falls apart. No more ridicule for using advanced armor, or having a multi-layered hull.
You could be lightweight and super efficient by only using as much hull / armor as your ship absolutely needs to avoid imploding, but you'd also benefit from using more, since losing armor hp would be less of a concern if you have some excess to spare.
Freedom F**k Yeah!
01. Foreword:
This one's no less wordy than the usual rants that tend to sprout like mushrooms around here, and quite franky, I'm losing my patience for them, same as you do. So I provided some TLDR for the major points in picture format for ease of assimilation. Then you can decide if the whole thing is worth reading.
02. What's wrong with the old way of things?
- Current system is flawed; Allows for "meta" ships to be vastly more powerful than "RP" ships of similar block count, due to having more power which in turn feed more systems, while using less hull and armor blocks resulting in a lower mass and thus increased mobility. Thus the need for the upcoming change.
03. What is being done to fix this?
-Dev's intent was to somehow tie power generation to ship size, and restore a semblance of balance between super-efficient solid system block ships and more realistic builds.
04. Why is it a bad solution?
-Reactor stabilizers fail at achieving the desired balance, because it favors long and thin ships. You'll get the best power output for your mass by placing your reactor on the far end of your ship on either axis, then placing your stabilizers on the opposite end of the same axis.
-By building a broad ship you'd have greater mass and would have room / need for more systems, yet your reactor can only support so much.
-Reactor in the center and stabilizers in the wings would still give you an inferior output, as for this to be at least as effective as a rear & front placement, your ship'd have to be at least twice as broad as it is long. And then, you'd still get better results by building your reactor on the tip of one wing, and the stabilizers on the other...
-Unless you kill or get killed in a high-alpha strike ambush, opponents usually fight with their prows facing each other. While they do try to manouver out of the other guy's firing arc, it's a pretty safe bet that in an even fight most of the damage you take will be on said prow. Which now houses your reactor stabilizers. Which, now damaged, gimp your power output, and make the already ponderous pace of destroying your foes even slower.
05. My two cents:
Since everyone and their dog is writing up alternative proposals, I'll throw mine out there as well:
-I think we need limitations that make sense, while allowing for the maximum amount of freedom in designing your ship.
- The problem of ships with disproportionally high amounts of power output and system blocks arose because the game allows designs that'd fall apart in reality. A system brick ship is akin to a stripped down rocket engine with guns and a nuclear reactor sticked in it, all without any kind of structural support. Nay, no compartments, not a single plate anywhere. Not even bolts or ducttape. Sounds safe, doesn't it?
06. The Solution:
- If you want to tie a ship's power output and through that, it's ability to feed it's systems, then tie it to the load-bearing capacity of it's hull!
"Duuh! Stuff in space is weightless! You can balance an anvil on top of a matchstick!"
-Yeah. You can. But there's also inertia. The matchstick will break if you try to push the anvil with it.
07. It can be done with minimum effort!
Hull strength is already represented by Armor HP.
Think of the airframe of planes, or the self-carrying armor chassis of tanks. There's a limit to how much weight they can support!
So your Armor HP would decide how many system blocks can you place in your ship.
You can play around with the values; How much capacity does a system block cost? Will you make different kinds of system blocks cost different amounts of capacity?
If the systems eat up a relatively high amount of cap., you'd also solve the issue of "solid ship is best ship" as the ship's structure wouldn't support enough systems to fill it up, thus you could have empty spaces inside without remorse. .......Or just stick a big ol' brick of armor on your rear and call it a day, but meh.
Ofc you'll have to re-balance every system block's performance. ( Ex, now you can have way less thruster blocks than before, so buff their output to avoid crawling around at the speed of a dead space slug.
08. What'll it do?
-The game shouldn't allow you to place system blocks above your hull's capacity to support them.
-If you do have systems over your capacity, either due to hull damage, or having removed a section in build mode, your system blocks would begin dying much the same way as if you flew into a sun -which is already coded! ( and I consider it a much welcome hastening of ship death, which in some cases can get ridiculiously protracted.)
09. Profit
In the end, the "meta" ship will need to do as the "RP" ship does, and use a relatively higher amount of hull and/or armor blocks, lest it falls apart. No more ridicule for using advanced armor, or having a multi-layered hull.
You could be lightweight and super efficient by only using as much hull / armor as your ship absolutely needs to avoid imploding, but you'd also benefit from using more, since losing armor hp would be less of a concern if you have some excess to spare.
Freedom F**k Yeah!
