Power system adjustments.

[Crusade]

Hello RPers, PVPers, Developers, Banned members, Lurkers and Guests.

Recently, Schine has been developing a new power system for StarMade.
This post is to address issues I have found as a RP player, and issues that have arisen in the PVP community. This post will also cover my personal look on the new system, as well as what needs to be changed/implemented.

I honestly don’t believe this post will result in any changes in the power system direction - However I believe it is important for the community to voice its concerns when it comes to large changes in the games design.

This post WILL NOT cover regeneration numbers. They are less relevant, and there are many more people far more qualified than myself to complain about, and voice concerns on that aspect.

With that out of the way, let’s get into the two major issues I have found with the new system.

1: Stabilisers do not stabilise.
Stabilisers are currently a forced limiting factor on reactor design. They should not be a necessary part of the reactor if you want a simple (unstable) reactor.
Stabilisers should:

• Increase chamber points to a max threshold dependant on reactor size (as they do now)
• NOT affect power regeneration for reactors
• Be near reactors to be effective, or linked by conduits.
• Stabilise reactors (more on this further down)

2: Reactors should be volatile.
Reactors without stabilisers in large groups should be dangerous. If a reactor is pushed beyond its limits, it should have severe negative effects on the ship.
With linear gains of reactors without stabilisers, they become larger, and easier to hit targets.

In a battle, as a reactor is damaged and broken down, the ship will drain more power beyond the rectors capabilities. This would initiate an overheat of the damaged reactor and need to switch to a redundant system, or risk the damaged reactor in-use exploding and causing further damage.
Reactors should:

• Be explosive, and cause catastrophic damage to surrounding blocks when detonated
• Have increased stabilisation (slower overheat time) that can go over 100%, for redundant stability. (good for hardy PVP builds)
• Have overheat/warnings to the pilot/display modules when the reactor is over-utilised
• “Heat” for over-utilised reactors that the pilot has to watch carefully to maintain if they intend to pilot a heavily damaged ship, or are in a battle
• If active systems are not kept in check or disabled, they will passively cause an overheat when a reactor is too damaged to support these systems power draw..
  

To be clear - Reactors would not explode when hit by weapon fire, and they would not chain off each-other.

Reactors should detonate and remove the entire active reactor group, Exploding/damaging surrounding blocks with damage related to the power draw of the entity at the time of detonation, and the original reactor size.

Reactors should detonate ONLY FROM the entities power draw being too high for the reactor to handle for a period of time.

Stabilisers should not affect reactor power generation, but instead stabilise the reactor to prevent overheat/detonation if too much power is drawn.


Thanks for reading.

EDIT:
Please use those agree or disagree buttons to show your opinion, or drop a comment.

 

[JinM]

In my opinion stabilizers should be less effective the closer they are to a reactor, but still be able to stabilize to 100% if you just use more of them. But it should still be the best idea, to place them at the "green" range, and it should be very inefficient (you should loose power) to place them so close, that there is no empty space in the ship anymore. This should make ships more flexible in their build style and wise, and lessens the freedom of build impact.

Additionally there should be less stabilizers needed, the further they are placed outside. I am not talking about a linear curve. There should be a minimum of stabilizer blocks needed, at like 50% of the blocks that are needed, compared to placing them in their most efficient distance (right when green starts).

I would agree with the op, if it would be realistic for SM, that we get another solution that encourages empty space in ships, instead of forcing it, within one year. But the development is not that fast and thus the stabilizer solution that Shine presented right now is my favourite.We will not get other game mechanics any faster, like Crew or what do I know what is usefull to encourage empty space in ships. That doesn't mean that it is the best one. It is easy to find counter arguments to the new power system.

And I really don't want to wait another year and be forced to build ships for pvp and rp with a huge difference forever.

 

[Ithirahad]

I would agree with the op, if it would be realistic for SM, that we get another solution to encourage empty space in ships, instead of forcing it, within one year. But the development is not that fast and thus the stabilizer solution that Schine presented right now is my favourite. We will not get other game mechanics any faster, like Crew or what do I know what is usefull to encourage empty space in ships.

IDK about you, but I'll be here in a year... I'd much rather deal with filling up empty space in ships now (which I always end up with a good amount of, even when I build lots of interior) and end up with near-parity to the equivalent doombrick, and then make changes in a year for a good system, than have a bad solution implemented now, try and fit up my hulls as best I can, and still be stuck with ugly interior-less meta ships wiping the floor with me, in the form of dumbbells instead of bricks.

 

[Dire Venom]

A well written post, thanks Crusade!
I guess that sorta makes 'heat' the new storage mechanic and the stabilizors the power capacitors:?
I'm all for brining back power capacity in some form, it's removal and replacement of 'spend 2 hours charging your titan pre battle' (yuck yuck yuck!!) doesn't slide well with me at all. If reactors generate energy, and systems use it, then why can't we also store it:? Weapons can spend 2 hours 'storing' in so why can't we also use a block for that?

 

[Crusade]

Kind of, yeah. Stabilisers should act as a cooling system, something that slows down the overheating process. The more you have, the longer you can push your reactor to its limit.

 

[Crimson-Artist]

wasn't "Heat" in the original power proposal and was taken out cuz ppl complained? It feels like we've come full circle here IDK.

 

[Ithirahad]

wasn't "Heat" in the original power proposal and was taken out cuz ppl complained? It feels like we've come full circle here IDK.

It was unpopular because the implementation was ill-thought out; it was going to come in the form of silly boxes and the end result would be that people would build 'chandelier' or 'cloud' arrangements with the systems spaced far from the reactor to mitigate heat damage. This heat mechanic would not cause such strangeness; it's numerical and only deals with reactor integrity and stability. There may be issues with this that I'm not noticing, but if it turns out unpopular it's for different reasons.

 

[Crusade]

Heat in the original prevented you from buinding stuff close together. In this it's a mechanic the pilot has to balance

 

[Jojomo]

In my opinion stabilizers should be less effective the closer they are to a reactor, but still be able to stabilize to 100% if you just use more of them. But it should still be the best idea, to place them at the "green" range, and it should be very inefficient (you should loose power) to place them so close, that there is no empty space in the ship anymore. This should make ships more flexible in their build style and wise, and lessens the freedom of build impact.

Additionally there should be less stabilizers needed, the further they are placed outside. I am not talking about a linear curve. There should be a minimum of stabilizer blocks needed, at like 50% of the blocks that are needed, compared to placing them in their most efficient distance (right when green starts).

That is a really nice adjustment to the current 2.0 system.
[doublepost=1508209913,1508209704][/doublepost]

.... and still be stuck with ugly interior-less meta ships wiping the floor with me, in the form of dumbbells instead of bricks.

Why are you so certain ships will end up as dumbells, Ithirahad? Perhaps you could show us a 2D systems layout sketch of what you think is going to happen?

 

[Ithirahad]

That is a really nice adjustment to the current 2.0 system.
[doublepost=1508209913,1508209704][/doublepost]
Why are you so certain ships will end up as dumbells, Ithirahad? Perhaps you could show us a 2D systems layout sketch of what you think is going to happen?

Well, dumbbells, double-bricks with thinner (or no) connectors, and other similar shapes. Possibly just columns/long bricks if power consumption per block on some things is low enough. Regardless of the actual arrangement, imagine a big reactor and chambers at the back, big stabilizer group at the front, weapons, shields and other things somewhere in-between or on the front piece. Then imagine a simple hull for that that doesn't waste mass.

 

[Jojomo]

Well, dumbbells, double-bricks with thinner (or no) connectors, and other similar shapes. Possibly just columns/long bricks if power consumption per block on some things is low enough. Regardless of the actual arrangement, imagine a big reactor and chambers at the back, big stabilizer group at the front, weapons, shields and other things somewhere in-between or on the front piece. Then imagine a simple hull for that that doesn't waste mass.

A visual layout would be much better for not misunderstanding you, but as the stabilisers are small relative to the reactors + chambers + thrusters, I'd say you end up with a ship that's "pointy" at one end, and big(ger) at the other, which sounds pretty trivial to make visually appealing.

As for two unconnected "sub-ships", or very thin connections, I suggest very simply requiring reactors and stabilisers be connected with conduits.
Unconnected sub-ships would be impossible, and very thin connections would be avoided because of the danger of missiles severing the conduit. People would want redundant connections and spacing between armour and conduit.


(This image is related only to my second paragraph on conduits, not the first on systems layout and hull shape)

 

[CyberTao]

Why are you so certain ships will end up as dumbells, Ithirahad? Perhaps you could show us a 2D systems layout sketch of what you think is going to happen?

Its not hard to for see if you follow the trends. The current system design forces empty space, which is useless to those who dont build interiors, so just cut that space out entirely. Suddenly your profile is a lot smaller and mass is less (because you dont need to armour the empty space). You saw a 2D visual of the new pvp ship design, and chose to have it deleted, so you not understanding is on you.

 

[AtraUnam]

Holy crap CyberTao is still around!

 

[CyberTao]

Holy crap CyberTao is still around!

I live, but not really. Starmade started to cause me physical pain so I stopped playing, but the screams and outrages from this proposed update dragged me back.

 

[AtraUnam]

I live, but not really. Starmade started to cause me physical pain so I stopped playing, but the screams and outrages from this proposed update dragged me back.

I see.

 

[The_Owl]

Stockholm syndrome is a beautiful thing.

 

[Jojomo]

Why are you so certain ships will end up as dumbells, Ithirahad? Perhaps you could show us a 2D systems layout sketch of what you think is going to happen?

Its not hard to for see if you follow the trends. The current system design forces empty space, which is useless to those who dont build interiors, so just cut that space out entirely. Suddenly your profile is a lot smaller and mass is less (because you dont need to armour the empty space). You saw a 2D visual of the new pvp ship design, and chose to have it deleted, so you not understanding is on you.

Will just point out first that as per the question of mine you quoted, we're discussing "dumbbell" shapes specifically.
You're making assumptions that don't necessarily hold.

1. Outside PVP duels, 99% of players want their ships to look "good", so the issue isn't necessarily a widespread one to start with (admittedly in PVP duels the percentage may be different).
2. Unless you can fit all your weapons on top of the stabiliser or the aft reactor+ "lump", you're going to have to put them somewhere else. If that somewhere is between the stabiliser and reactor, then (depending on dimensions involved) cutting out space isn't necessarily the lightest solution. An example image showing this principle in action: (I haven't aimed for useful dimensions, the principle is the point, and it's sound)

Image just shows the nose of a ship (up is fwd), pink is stabiliser, blue is weapon modules

3. The difference, in armour from stabiliser to reactor, between dumbbell and wedge/stick hulls depends heavily on the shape of the stabiliser. In this image the advantage of B over C is drastically smaller than the advantage of B over A, despite the (2D) stabilises all being the same size :


4. If you want a multitude of weapons to be able to fire forward, a dumbbell isn't likely to cut it, you'll use a wedge-ish shaped hull, which means that hull between stabiliser and reactor will be present anyway (unless you want to armour each face of each weapon, which is wasteful - see point #2)
5. Has anyone modified a "good" design from power 1.0 to 2.0 and actually checked to see what percentage mass increase there is between armouring over the empty space created (i.e. including it inside the hull) and armouring strictly along the interface between blocks and empty space? Thinking about it, I suspect that percentage difference will be very, very small.




​

 

[Snowtiger256]

I see one flaw in your thinking so far, you seem to be insisting that reactors and stabilizers have to be in big groups at the extreme opposite ends of the ship, when this is not the case. The system doesn't enforce this kind of thinking at all. If people want front-firing weapons, they will put the weapons in the front of the ship and modify reactor/stabilizer configuration to match their needs.

Fiddling with the dev build, I've built multiple salvager ships with the array at the front (front-firing of course), with a reactor setup at midships and stabilizers trailing behind. With a bit of thought I can even squeeze the reactor assembly between the salvager array waffle(with an end cap to tie the reactor lines together), to reduce the overall length of the ship.

I used salvage arrays as an example, but I could just as easily replace them with cannons or beam weapons if I wanted to, but it wouldn't change the fact that outside the dimension requirements, you can actually have the reactors/stabilizers configured as you wish.

The system enforces dimension requirements, but it doesn't otherwise limit your configuration options.

 

[Crusade]

Snowtiger256 Try building a 150-m long ship with high powered weapons, or a LARGE high powered salvage array.

 

[Snowtiger256]

Snowtiger256 Try building a 150-m long ship with high powered weapons, or a LARGE high powered salvage array.

I tried that too, doesn't work that well with dimensions, but it still functions just fine. I had a large 100m long salvage array powered with the new power system, at around 2mill recharge, the overall dimensions of the test rig were 400-600m long (placing stabilizers at the aft end and integrating the reactor in the back end of the array itself) or even more than that if I went vertical with the setup (when placing stabilizer groups at top and bottom instead of in two groups adjacent to each other). The array powered just fine, despite the obvious dimension quandries. Total block count for that reactor was around 25k with an equivalent amount of stabilizers.

I was able to play with the distance, by reducing the block count of the reactor, but it's still a long way from what it used to be with the old system. in the old system I could power the exact same array with a way lower block count (including both old reactors and capacitors). The array I used was from my main salvager, which was about 150m long in total, with all the visual eye candy and other systems included.

The problem is the math of the system, total block count of the power systems (and therefore the dimensions) could be easily reduced by upping the recharge per block, and perhaps going non-linear on the power curve, so a lesser amount of blocks would offer more power.