Power should EXPLODE!

[1adog1]

Just have 127 hp for everything, then choose float damage-divisors (1/divisor = factor; replaces armour %) for

• dmg terrain /= 0.3
  
• dmg vitals /= 0.2 (death explosion = 105% hp)
• dmg deko/cpus /= 0.1
  
• dmg basic hull /= 1
• dmg hardened hull /= 3
• ...

You would need to blow up 5 vitals to kill 1 basic hull and 15 vitals in range of 1 hardened hull.

As the target vital is exposed, it would mean that killing 1 layer is killing 3 layers. Thus you could just let weapons deal 1/3 damage...

This relative hp compared to basic hull is much better than hp*armour, and you can change hp values (dmg accuracy) during updates independent of the server.cfg.

I'm all for the technical stuff but just to clarify, you're saying that to take out one piece of hull it would need to be in range of 5 power storage explosions, and 15 for a hardened hull? That could be a neat idea, but I hate the fact that if you have a cluster of power storage/production, they all chain explode and your ship loses power on the first hit.

 

[rece ktore leczo]

If new types of power generators would be implemented then exploding blocks would be fine.

It could be like this:

• normal generators (present type) - medium energy output, no explosion upon destroying
• fuel-driven generators - high energy output, no explosion, require fuel to produce energy
• nuclear generators - high energy output, no fuel requirements, but explode (maybe with chain reaction) upon destroying.

Applying explosion for current system is a bad idea IMO

 

[1adog1]

If new types of power generators would be implemented then exploding blocks would be fine.

It could be like this:

• normal generators (present type) - medium energy output, no explosion upon destroying
• fuel-driven generators - high energy output, no explosion, require fuel to produce energy
• nuclear generators - high energy output, no fuel requirements, but explode (maybe with chain reaction) upon destroying.

Applying explosion for current system is a bad idea IMO

Here's one of those changes which would be awesome

 

[Vyor]

If new types of power generators would be implemented then exploding blocks would be fine.

It could be like this:

• normal generators (present type) - medium energy output, no explosion upon destroying
• fuel-driven generators - high energy output, no explosion, require fuel to produce energy
• nuclear generators - high energy output, no fuel requirements, but explode (maybe with chain reaction) upon destroying.

Applying explosion for current system is a bad idea IMO

fair enough

 

[rece ktore leczo]

fair enough

Woah, no second thoughts? Wow, i'm impressed

Unluckily this idea isn't mine, i've just read it on forum before and remembered it, so i don't own credits for convincing You in single post

 

[NeonSturm]

There is no chain explode in my idea.
Just the attacked (hit by amc/missile) block will blow up. The others take damage but not forward the kaboom to a chain explosion.
It prevents using vitals as a cheaper version of hull.

If we fix the health to something like 255 or 31 for every block of some type and just adjust the armour, we would save lines in a server.cfg file.

The floats just appear in static (saved once per program) variables and are hopefully (depends on Java) loaded together with the execute-able code, not with extra requests to the ram.
Maybe objects would then have a lower memory footprint if hp are stored in a separate array (not relevant for the graphic card) as most blocks are either completely dead or alive.

Damaged objects take 1 bit (instead of 8) in the primary object to not default to 255 for a "fresh object is hit" event. The actual value is likely cached and won't clutter up the smaller graphic card memory.

 

[Vyor]

There is no chain explode in my idea.
Just the attacked (hit by amc/missile) block will blow up. The others take damage but not forward the kaboom to a chain explosion.
It prevents using vitals as a cheaper version of hull.

It can't work like that, damage is damage, everything is using the same damage... this would require a complete rewrite of explosion code(missiles would use the same code as those exploding blocks). Not to mention the separation of damage.

 

[Lecic]

Have you seen the amount of tanks bigger ships need? Hell, some of my smaller ships need massive amounts of them.

You can either combine them and get the full benefit, but risk destruction, or separate them and get less power storage but more defence.

Also, by chain explode, I don't mean like disintegrators, where the explosion gets stronger the more there are. I just mean that it will set off the explosion of the other boxes. So, no, your entire ship wouldn't be destroyed, that tank block and the three layers of blocks surrounding it would be.

And most of the problems people have here (hull too weak) is going to be solved with the change to total ship HP from individual block HP.

 

[RedDragonflyxx]

This does NOT look like a good idea to me, any practical layout of a ship I can think of without a major mechanics overhaul would become too vulnerable to being destroyed. Having shields not cover vital systems would be good though. Then maybe they would cover destroyed hull blocks like a forcefield, which might work with some sort of memory of where blocks were. (destroy a hull block and the shield prevents shots from passing through the hole when they recharge)

 

[Vyor]

You can either combine them and get the full benefit, but risk destruction, or separate them and get less power storage but more defence.

Also, by chain explode, I don't mean like disintegrators, where the explosion gets stronger the more there are. I just mean that it will set off the explosion of the other boxes. So, no, your entire ship wouldn't be destroyed, that tank block and the three layers of blocks surrounding it would be.

And most of the problems people have here (hull too weak) is going to be solved with the change to total ship HP from individual block HP.

That is how disintegrators work...and tnt in minecraft...

 

[1adog1]

You can either combine them and get the full benefit, but risk destruction, or separate them and get less power storage but more defence.

Also, by chain explode, I don't mean like disintegrators, where the explosion gets stronger the more there are. I just mean that it will set off the explosion of the other boxes. So, no, your entire ship wouldn't be destroyed, that tank block and the three layers of blocks surrounding it would be.

And most of the problems people have here (hull too weak) is going to be solved with the change to total ship HP from individual block HP.

The issue is though you'd need to seperate each power unit by THREE blocks. With that setup it is mathematically impossible just to move the ship without sustaining energy levels. It's not practical nor workable.

 

[Lecic]

This does NOT look like a good idea to me, any practical layout of a ship I can think of without a major mechanics overhaul would become too vulnerable to being destroyed. Having shields not cover vital systems would be good though. Then maybe they would cover destroyed hull blocks like a forcefield, which might work with some sort of memory of where blocks were. (destroy a hull block and the shield prevents shots from passing through the hole when they recharge)

So what if it requires some rebuilding? This has only recently become an alpha (before it was a pre-alpha), huge changes are to be expected. I don't see very many people complaining about how the weapons system changing messes up their old ones.

The issue is though you'd need to seperate each power unit by THREE blocks. With that setup it is mathematically impossible just to move the ship without sustaining energy levels. It's not practical nor workable.

You could separate them into chunks of power? Instead of 1 massive chunk, you have 2 or 3 or 4 or more chunks. It's a trade off. You can design your ship to be the most efficient, but more likely to be destroyed if the shields drop, or you can make it less efficient but not have to worry as much if one of your chunks gets K/O'd.

That is how disintegrators work...and tnt in minecraft...

Disintegrators increase exponentially in power. Two together in a single bomb are more powerful than 2 individuals.

 

[Vyor]

So what if it requires some rebuilding? This has only recently become an alpha (before it was a pre-alpha), huge changes are to be expected. I don't see very many people complaining about how the weapons system changing messes up their old ones.



You could separate them into chunks of power? Instead of 1 massive chunk, you have 2 or 3 or 4 or more chunks. It's a trade off. You can design your ship to be the most efficient, but more likely to be destroyed if the shields drop, or you can make it less efficient but not have to worry as much if one of your chunks gets K/O'd.



Disintegrators increase exponentially in power. Two together in a single bomb are more powerful than 2 individuals.

That's like saying that because detonating 2 grenades causes a bigger explosion...when they go off at different times...

 

[ltmauve]

If new types of power generators would be implemented then exploding blocks would be fine.

It could be like this:

• normal generators (present type) - medium energy output, no explosion upon destroying
• fuel-driven generators - high energy output, no explosion, require fuel to produce energy
• nuclear generators - high energy output, no fuel requirements, but explode (maybe with chain reaction) upon destroying.

Applying explosion for current system is a bad idea IMO

I have come up with a very similar energy system, which can be seen here. This has "cell" type blocks, which are basically batteries that need to be refueled.

 

[ltmauve]

1. 3 posts after the post You've quoted, i have written that it isn't my idea
2. I'm pretty sure something like this was suggested on the old site
3. Your idea is that exploding reactors would also use fuel
4. Your idea is a variation of the original post of linked thread
5. Your idea contains cells, while i was speaking only about reactors

And i don't think there is a copyright on the suggestions. Not that i want random people to claim that it's theirs idea, but that nobody should claim they are the origins of the suggestion. Maybe they could with exceptionally original ones, but most of the suggestions here are based on other suggestions/games/films/series/etc.

Some suggestions are specific only to Starmade because they are based or are solutions for the Starmade engine, which is unique. But still people, imo, shouldn't go around and claim "i was first".

Sorry. That was a poorly written post. I didn't mean to claim that I had copyright or that I came up with the general ideas (Pretty sure I didn't) It was merely intended as an alternate set of rules that people could comment on in the context of this thread. Going back and editing that post shortly.

Onto the debate of the actual mechanics, now. The reason I favor exploding reactor requiring fuel is because if they produce so much power, they can be used in larger ships, and give plenty of room for shields in place of the xm3.4s that are no longer required. I am envisioning these new power systems to be used in larger ships. The cost of the reactor exploding is not a sufficient nerf to counter the extra shields. The fuel cost makes fielding titans something that should be considered, not always done.

 

[rece ktore leczo]

Then i'm sorry for that unnecessary lecture

Well, rather exploding generators should use fuel or not is a matter of balancing stats. If the energy output would be much higher for exploding generator than for non-exploding one, then adding fuel consumption may be a good idea. But if differences wouldn't be that big, then fuel consumption isn't needed.

So here we meet again, Customization

Options to change energy output, fuel consumption and explosion upon destroying server-wide, is the best way IMO. And probably it would be the implemented way (if there would be fuel consumption and explosion on destroying (which already is in-game -> disintegrators) )

Personally i wouldn't like energy generators with too big energy output (more than 2x typical output). I know it could be balanced with higher fuel consumption or radius of explosion, but if player want to have high e.reg./s then he should be prepared to place a lot of energy reg. blocks.

 

[ltmauve]

Don't worry about the lecture.

Anyway, there could be an xm7.2 reactor, which is basically a slightly more powerful xm3.4 that explodes if hit. Same mechanics.

Though I suppose they should share the regen cap, though that cap should scale based on how much comes from the xm3.4 and how much from the xm7.2.

 

[NeonSturm]

You don't have to fill the gap with hull - just leave it empty if you don't want chain exploding tanks or reactors. No 3 layers of hull...

Small ships (vs big) evade, big ships (vs small) tank damage. That is the difference.


Thus you could either be efficient vs many small or efficient vs bigger ships by choosing to be either evasive or tank.

 

[Vyor]

You don't have to fill the gap with hull - just leave it empty if you don't want chain exploding tanks or reactors. No 3 layers of hull...

Small ships (vs big) evade, big ships (vs small) tank damage. That is the difference.


Thus you could either be efficient vs many small or efficient vs bigger ships by choosing to be either evasive or tank.

Here is a situation:
Large battle between 2 titans, 2 carriers, and many fighters.
A titan hits the opposing titans powertanks.
A large explosion ensues, crippling the titan(thanks to damage mechanics).
This gives the edge to 1 team over the other in about 10-20 seconds.
There is no way to counter this except have less massive ships.
This limits creativity, something that nobody wants.

 

[NeonSturm]

No chain explosions!
Just the one vital killed by non-aoe weaponry (amc, not missile as it already has aoe) cause one aoe-effect...

You can already core-drill any ship (also titans) in 20 seconds. With equal mass in turrets/fighters compared to a ship.

And the best defence is to make the capitals be a swarm of fighters in one ship instance -> huge miss rate -> limits creativity <- even currently. Do you not agree here, too?