- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 8
So I've noticed that a lot of the engineering types on these boards are pretty unhappy with how the new power system has less potential for optimization through clever design than the old one. I don't disagree; while I love the chambers and welcome a lower barrier to entry for new players, I'm definitely going to miss the emergent engineering puzzles that power lines gave us.
It seems to me what's needed is a completely optional subsystem that offers small, scaling benefits in return for faster-scaling complexity. I think I've worked something out that achieves that, while minimizing the number of new mechanics needed.
My proposal has several components, each of which increases complexity more than the last:
1. Multiple Stabilizer Groups
Stabilizer groups suffer from diminishing returns on efficiency as they get larger. It's never too onerous, but having multiple smaller stabilizer groups instead of one big one allows you to reach 100% efficiency with fewer blocks overall.
To keep people from filling their ship with a thousand one-block stabilizer groups, there'd be an additional set of diminishing returns on the number of stabilizer groups. Each stabilizer group must maintain a minimum distance from every other active stabilizer group, much like the minimum distance it has to maintain from the reactor. In addition, the minimum distance between stabilizer groups scales proportionally to the number of stabilizer groups you have; the more stabilizer groups you have, the further apart they have to be.
In any case, the maximum reduction in number of blocks would be fairly modest; perhaps 10% fewer, at best.
2. Stabilizer Conduits
Stabilizer groups can be connected to the reactor by conduits. Doing so decreases all of the minimum distances involved: both between the stabilizer and reactor, and between different stabilizer groups. This lets you pack more reactors and stabilizers into the same size of ship, ultimately offering perhaps a 5% improvement in power-to-size ratio.
However, here we run into another set of diminishing returns, one already present in the existing system: conduits have a power cost per block, which means that putting your stabilizers too far away will start to lose you power, instead of gaining it. I imagine that the optimal distance would be marginally larger than the minimum distance.
3. Stabilizer Chaining
Stabilizers don't just connect to the reactor; they can also be connected to other stabilizers by means of conduits. Any stabilizer group connected only to other stabilizer groups is called a secondary stabilizer. Instead of affecting the reactor directly, they increase the size at which their primary stabilizer suffers diminishing efficiency returns, as well as the maximum efficiency bonus it grants to the reactor. This latter benefit will be decreased the more secondary stabilizers you have; this ensures that the reactor's total efficiency doesn't exceed 100%.
Secondary stabilizer groups must maintain the same minimum distance from other active stabilizer groups as primary stabilizers do; however, only primary stabilizers are counted when determining the minimum distance between groups.
What this all means is you can achieve full reactor efficiency with fewer primary stabilizer groups, letting you place the stabilizers closer together. You'll also save on power costs somewhat due to needing fewer conduit blocks.
(Do note, however, that using secondary stabilizers will increase the total number of stabilizer blocks needed on the ship. The benefit is that secondary stabilizers don't have to be packed as close around the reactor as primary stabilizers do.)
4. Stabilizer Multi-Chaining
The best part about secondary stabilizers is that they can be attached to multiple primary stabilizers, and will provide each with their full benefit. If you've been paying close attention, you might recall that each secondary stabilizer on a given primary increases the efficiency cap, but the total number of secondary stabilizers diminishes it. Therefore: if you attach a single secondary stabilizer to multiple primaries, you can achieve reactor efficiencies greater than 100%.
The "true" cap on efficiency would still be not much higher than that; likely 105% would be the practical maximum, with a theoretical flawless design managing perhaps 110%.
I like this last component in particular because it feels almost like an exploit. It's not the sort of thing that a new player would likely think of, but when they do recognize the loophole I bet they'll feel inordinately pleased with themselves.
And there you have it. Thoughts? Questions? Anything unclear? I'm still not entirely happy with the benefits of secondary stabilizers; they feel a bit too complicated, still. But I really want the >100% efficiency to require multi-chaining (or a similar loophole).
(I'll try to draw up some diagrams later, to provide clearer examples of what I mean and break up the wall-of-text a bit. Right now, though, my hands need a rest.)
It seems to me what's needed is a completely optional subsystem that offers small, scaling benefits in return for faster-scaling complexity. I think I've worked something out that achieves that, while minimizing the number of new mechanics needed.
My proposal has several components, each of which increases complexity more than the last:
1. Multiple Stabilizer Groups
Stabilizer groups suffer from diminishing returns on efficiency as they get larger. It's never too onerous, but having multiple smaller stabilizer groups instead of one big one allows you to reach 100% efficiency with fewer blocks overall.
To keep people from filling their ship with a thousand one-block stabilizer groups, there'd be an additional set of diminishing returns on the number of stabilizer groups. Each stabilizer group must maintain a minimum distance from every other active stabilizer group, much like the minimum distance it has to maintain from the reactor. In addition, the minimum distance between stabilizer groups scales proportionally to the number of stabilizer groups you have; the more stabilizer groups you have, the further apart they have to be.
In any case, the maximum reduction in number of blocks would be fairly modest; perhaps 10% fewer, at best.
2. Stabilizer Conduits
Stabilizer groups can be connected to the reactor by conduits. Doing so decreases all of the minimum distances involved: both between the stabilizer and reactor, and between different stabilizer groups. This lets you pack more reactors and stabilizers into the same size of ship, ultimately offering perhaps a 5% improvement in power-to-size ratio.
However, here we run into another set of diminishing returns, one already present in the existing system: conduits have a power cost per block, which means that putting your stabilizers too far away will start to lose you power, instead of gaining it. I imagine that the optimal distance would be marginally larger than the minimum distance.
3. Stabilizer Chaining
Stabilizers don't just connect to the reactor; they can also be connected to other stabilizers by means of conduits. Any stabilizer group connected only to other stabilizer groups is called a secondary stabilizer. Instead of affecting the reactor directly, they increase the size at which their primary stabilizer suffers diminishing efficiency returns, as well as the maximum efficiency bonus it grants to the reactor. This latter benefit will be decreased the more secondary stabilizers you have; this ensures that the reactor's total efficiency doesn't exceed 100%.
Secondary stabilizer groups must maintain the same minimum distance from other active stabilizer groups as primary stabilizers do; however, only primary stabilizers are counted when determining the minimum distance between groups.
What this all means is you can achieve full reactor efficiency with fewer primary stabilizer groups, letting you place the stabilizers closer together. You'll also save on power costs somewhat due to needing fewer conduit blocks.
(Do note, however, that using secondary stabilizers will increase the total number of stabilizer blocks needed on the ship. The benefit is that secondary stabilizers don't have to be packed as close around the reactor as primary stabilizers do.)
4. Stabilizer Multi-Chaining
The best part about secondary stabilizers is that they can be attached to multiple primary stabilizers, and will provide each with their full benefit. If you've been paying close attention, you might recall that each secondary stabilizer on a given primary increases the efficiency cap, but the total number of secondary stabilizers diminishes it. Therefore: if you attach a single secondary stabilizer to multiple primaries, you can achieve reactor efficiencies greater than 100%.
The "true" cap on efficiency would still be not much higher than that; likely 105% would be the practical maximum, with a theoretical flawless design managing perhaps 110%.
I like this last component in particular because it feels almost like an exploit. It's not the sort of thing that a new player would likely think of, but when they do recognize the loophole I bet they'll feel inordinately pleased with themselves.
And there you have it. Thoughts? Questions? Anything unclear? I'm still not entirely happy with the benefits of secondary stabilizers; they feel a bit too complicated, still. But I really want the >100% efficiency to require multi-chaining (or a similar loophole).
(I'll try to draw up some diagrams later, to provide clearer examples of what I mean and break up the wall-of-text a bit. Right now, though, my hands need a rest.)
