Obi's Power Suggestion

[ObiShawnKenobi]

K here we go. Short and simple.

I have two suggestions to add to power after the pre-release. Also, I tried to reach a "compromise" between the community and the goals of Schine.

REACTOR BURNOUT
When the ship runs out of power, like shields presently, the reactor cannot regenerate for a few seconds.
I thought of this for balancing purposes so then the ship needs a sufficient reactor.

STABILIZER MECHANICS
Forget this distance shit. I'm not gonna spend the time to make this fancy formula, but I'll say what I think should happen.
Power reactors should have a specific recharge variance that increases per the size of the main reactor. The larger the reactor, the more the power recharge can be affected. It should be mainly affected when multiple systems are in use.
Stabilizers are the solution for the variance. A specific amount of stabilizers should level out the variance. Distance from the reactor should NOT apply.

POWER CAPACITORS
Just keep them.

Other than that, I like the chamber system and a lot of things from the pre-release. This is just my two cents.

 

[Spartan-228]

I agree stabilizers should not have to be placed a certain distance frome the reactor. In fact, givan the name I think they should have to be built into your reactor design.

 

[Lucidess]

The distance is intended, and required for legitimate ships. If you really want you can make your own server with custom settings that disable this rule.

 

[ObiShawnKenobi]

The distance is intended, and required for legitimate ships. If you really want you can make your own server with custom settings that disable this rule.

My suggestion bascially adds more blocks instead of making distance a factor. The whole aspect of distance, in many views, is the wrong approach.

 

[Spartan-228]

The distance is intended, and required for legitimate ships. If you really want you can make your own server with custom settings that disable this rule.

I can see the benefits to making it they way it is. But on the flip side is dose make it very hard if not imposible to make some ships. For example, I built a TIE Fighter and TIE Inteceptor. The TIE F is now more powerful than it was with the old power system, however the TIE I which was quite potent in the old system is now a shadow of its former self. The reason for this is that the TIE F' s wings are taller, alowing the stabilizers to be placed farther away from the reactor than is possible on the TIE I.

 

[ObiShawnKenobi]

With my suggestion, small ships will not be heavily affected by reactor variance because its a small reactor. The variance will only get bigger when the recharge (e/sec) becomes larger. Therefore, they will not require stabilizers.

 

[Dire Venom]

REACTOR BURNOUT
When the ship runs out of power, like shields presently, the reactor cannot regenerate for a few seconds.
I thought of this for balancing purposes so then the ship needs a sufficient reactor.

Much like I do. Makes sense, other game mechanics work this way and pushing a reactor to it's limit/draining it of all power is likely to cause issues.

STABILIZER MECHANICS
Forget this distance shit. I'm not gonna spend the time to make this fancy formula, but I'll say what I think should happen.
Power reactors should have a specific recharge variance that increases per the size of the main reactor. The larger the reactor, the more the power recharge can be affected. It should be mainly affected when multiple systems are in use.
Stabilizers are the solution for the variance. A specific amount of stabilizers should level out the variance. Distance from the reactor should NOT apply.

I can understand why they came up with them however I disagree with how they have been implimented. It certiantly does ship design no favours and I do not find them fun or engaging to use at all.

POWER CAPACITORS
Just keep them.

Other than that, I like the chamber system and a lot of things from the pre-release. This is just my two cents.

As far as power capacitators go, I too really feel the loss of them. The old system was broken, however the balance between Regen and Capacity always felt solid as a game mechanic.
Now we just have..... Regen?? With power supossedly being stored in Weapon blocks (But of course we can't store it in a battery, how absurd!!) It just feels sorta wrong, like it was rushed and needs a bit more work to be coherent and engaging.
At the very least I would like to see a modified form of Auxilaries return to fufill somewhat of a power storage option.

 

[Valiant70]

When the ship runs out of power, like shields presently, the reactor cannot regenerate for a few seconds.
I thought of this for balancing purposes so then the ship needs a sufficient reactor.

I'd rather have my ship's computer regulate things and slow down recharge as needed according to my priority queue to keep the reactor from overloading. That's the way it behaves now, and I like it that way.

STABILIZER MECHANICS
Forget this distance shit. I'm not gonna spend the time to make this fancy formula, but I'll say what I think should happen.
Power reactors should have a specific recharge variance that increases per the size of the main reactor. The larger the reactor, the more the power recharge can be affected. It should be mainly affected when multiple systems are in use.
Stabilizers are the solution for the variance. A specific amount of stabilizers should level out the variance. Distance from the reactor should NOT apply.

The stabilizers don't have a whole lot of purpose that way. It's... interesting I guess but I can't see this being very fun to work with. The random variance would make a portion of your reactor power essentially useless because you risk a burnout if you use the fluctuating percentage of your recharge.

So, the stabilizers are effectively a requirement. There's no way you'd leave them off. I can see this being interesting in battle as stabilizers get destroyed, but trying to minimize power usage to prevent a burnout while trying to fight at the same time just doesn't sound fun. One burnout and you're dead.

It's a creative idea, but it just sounds like a huge pain to actually play the game with.

 

[ObiShawnKenobi]

I'd rather have my ship's computer regulate things and slow down recharge as needed according to my priority queue to keep the reactor from overloading. That's the way it behaves now, and I like it that way.



The stabilizers don't have a whole lot of purpose that way. It's... interesting I guess but I can't see this being very fun to work with. The random variance would make a portion of your reactor power essentially useless because you risk a burnout if you use the fluctuating percentage of your recharge.

So, the stabilizers are effectively a requirement. There's no way you'd leave them off. I can see this being interesting in battle as stabilizers get destroyed, but trying to minimize power usage to prevent a burnout while trying to fight at the same time just doesn't sound fun. One burnout and you're dead.

It's a creative idea, but it just sounds like a huge pain to actually play the game with.

Like I originally stated, the power burnout is to really prevent reactor abuse. I was thinking that the burnout should be something like 3-5 seconds or so. Like previously, after some system damage you would get specific outages. This is sorta what I'm talking about, except its when you run out of power entirely.

Additionally, stabilizers act as, well, stabilizers. Rather than have them be dependent on distance, I made an approach and said to make it depend on reactor recharge. That way, you would need a lot more stabilizers to match up with the reactors. Add capacitors onto that as well.

 

[Valiant70]

Like I originally stated, the power burnout is to really prevent reactor abuse. I was thinking that the burnout should be something like 3-5 seconds or so. Like previously, after some system damage you would get specific outages. This is sorta what I'm talking about, except its when you run out of power entirely.

If you do that, there's no point to the power priority system. I like the priority system. It's automatic power management that kicks in when I need it (when power is overdrawn) according to how I choose to set it up.

 

[ObiShawnKenobi]

If you do that, there's no point to the power priority system. I like the priority system. It's automatic power management that kicks in when I need it according to how I choose to set it up.

Doesn't the priority system just say what power should go to first?

 

[Valiant70]

Doesn't the priority system just say what power should go to first?

If you've got two systems that drain 500 and you have 1000 recharge available, it doesn't matter which one you care about more. They both get 500 and they recharge as fast as possible.

You only need priority when there is more demand for power than your reactor can supply. Say I have three systems. Two drain 500 each, and a third, very important one that drains 200. The first two are almost always on, but sometimes I need the third one. Because the third one is very important, I tell my reactor to prioritize it over the others. Then, when I activate all three and overdraw my 1000 recharge, the reactor slows down one of the first two systems so the important system can recharge as fast as possible.

 

[ObiShawnKenobi]

If you've got two systems that drain 500 and you have 1000 recharge available, it doesn't matter which one you care about more. They both get 500 and they recharge as fast as possible.

You only need priority when there is more demand for power than your reactor can supply. Say I have three systems. Two drain 500 each, and a third, very important one that drains 200. The first two are almost always on, but sometimes I need the third one. Because the third one is very important, I tell my reactor to prioritize it over the others. Then, when I activate all three and overdraw my 1000 recharge, the reactor slows down one of the first two systems so the important system can recharge as fast as possible.

So then if my suggestion was implemented, your solution would be increasing either the recharge, capacity, or both. Then, if needed, there may have to be more stabilizers added as well.

I'm actually more concerned about changing the reactor rather than reactor burnout since that does have a moderate solution.

 

[Valiant70]

So then if my suggestion was implemented, your solution would be increasing either the recharge, capacity, or both. Then, if needed, there may have to be more stabilizers added as well.

I'm actually more concerned about changing the reactor rather than reactor burnout since that does have a moderate solution.

You're not making any sense at all.

 

[petlahk]

Uhhhh. Firstly, you need to actually explain what you mean by variance. Secondly, how is that actually different to the way stabilizers currently are required to make reactors run at full recharge efficiency?

The reactor burnout idea makes sense. I would go so far as to argue that it's necessary. It doesn't make sense that players can still charge their FTL drive and use their thrusters when their reactor is operating at over max power.

Thirdly. The capacitors should not be brought back. If ship systems already hold power for themselves then they are unnecessary. And, if they were brought back, all they would serve to accomplish is to make system cramming a thing again.

 

[Valiant70]

when their reactor is operating at over max power.

It never goes over max power. The ship automatically limits it and distributes ALL AVAILABLE POWER to the systems highest on the priority. The others get no power until the prioritized systems are done. If your thrusters are lower on the priority than your guns, you WILL lose power to your engines if you fire too many guns at once.
[doublepost=1513033767,1513033733][/doublepost]

Thirdly. The capacitors should not be brought back. If ship systems already hold power for themselves then they are unnecessary. And, if they were brought back, all they would serve to accomplish is to make system cramming a thing again.

Agreed with this part though.

 

[petlahk]

It never goes over max power. The ship automatically limits it and distributes ALL AVAILABLE POWER to the systems highest on the priority. The others get no power until the prioritized systems are done. If your thrusters are lower on the priority than your guns, you WILL lose power to your engines if you fire too many guns at once.

Ahh. Alright. That makes sense. It's just a little hard to tell in the GUI haha.

 

[Valiant70]

Ahh. Alright. That makes sense. It's just a little hard to tell in the GUI haha.

It was clear enough to me from the patch notes.

 

[petlahk]

It was clear enough to me from the patch notes.

Eh. It's been a while since I read those. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Ithirahad]

The distance is intended, and required for legitimate ships. If you really want you can make your own server with custom settings that disable this rule.

It is not required for 'legitimate ships,' and really just trades one 'illegitimate' design for another. We go from doomcubes, doom-columns, and spaghetti to doom sticks, doombbells, and abominations with tons of floating parts. Except now, your 'legitimate' ship has arbitrary limitations to how well it will work based on its longest axis.