Power System Overhaul Proposal

[Panpiper]

It makes room around my reactor for a cool reactor room, and forces less aesthetically-minded players to leave it empty.

So because you desire a certain aesthetic, everyone else shall be FORCED to rebuild absolutely everything so as to fit? A crew & quarters system as I outlined would completely reward you for having a cool reactor room without forcing everyone to abandon everything they have built.

 

[Ithirahad]

I expect to see it take at least weeks to mature enough to be implemented as a test feature (turned on by config) and months before it's tested, balanced and reworked in-game for it to replace the previous system.

There isn't much concrete discussion that can be had, honestly, until there is a prototype available in the dev builds. We all can theorycraft all we want, but it cannot and will not cover every unforeseen factor, which may be critical enough that it changes most of the discussions and considerations.

 

[Madman198237]

I agree with some of the points of Drakkart's post. Especially the idea that we need more details. We can't make judgements (Reasonable judgements, anyway) until we have all the details.

What sized boxes are we looking at? (And can we get rid of the dumb things right now?)

How large can you get before you need to invest in some serious cooling (In other words, how far can a newbie go before slamming into a wall of cooling mechanics? Or, again, at what point does the easiest solution stop being "Make a bigger cube/rectangular prism of reactor blocks"?)

What are your thresholds for these things (AKA numbers for everything) ideas? And if you don't have any, when are you going to ask us for ideas?

Why not go straight to a more IC2-like system, where your reactor generates heat and you deal with the heat (Or you don't). Or you can run a risky sort of system and run at a certain level of heat for a certain level of efficiency (And risk, since if you start taking hits to the cooling subsystems....well.....Good bye?)

Overall, I like this idea. It has the chance to add simplicity and logic ("Why", says the newbie, "do we build power reactors in straight lines? Why not boxes, or spheres? Why are we maximizing dimensions and what do you even mean?"), yet have depth (How efficient can you make a cooling system? Will your design work better with one or several reactors? Can you make this so that it can run at a high level of heat generation for just enough time to kill your enemies?) and late-game fun (Your capacity-based fighter did what to his third tertiary power core on the second-largest turret of his second-rate titan?).

But overall, I hate this idea. It's the worst undefined suggestion ever to get a lot of attention (Probably) and has no definitive anything anywhere.


EDIT: Man are there are a lot of posts that happened in the time it took me to write this xD

 

[Neon_42]

Just when I have all my spreadsheets how I like a new power mechanic throws a wrench in the system. Awesome

Here are my thoughts:

This should be as simple as possible. This game is already fairly complicated and not super accessible.

how ships interact with each other needs to dictate power design. (See A Manifesto on the Relationship Between Fighters, Titans and AI)

In principle I like the heat generation . If you overdraw the reactor you can cause it to overheat and shut down. I'm okay with this. but this is already similar to what we have. If you overdraw power you shutdown. I'm not sure what problems this solves and honestly I think it is just thinking about the system backwards. Instead of power flowing to systems, you have heat flowing to a reactor. It is not really any different.

I like the idea of having "heat effect" areas that force players to think about efficient design and allow for interiors. Real and sci-fi ships are mostly hollow (unless they're drones). I think ours should also be mostly hollow.

Whatever system is in place players need to be able to calculate the heat or power generation, usage, and balance between the two. Preferably in spreadsheet form.

chambers should not be used for specific systems unless they are displayed in the HUD.

Here is how I would have it work:

1. For a given core it has some threshold "heat" or "power" value. Lets call this H.
2. Each system generates a set value of heat or power called "h".
   if the sum of all the h, h1+h2+h3+.... is less than H then the ship works. Diminishing returns are worked into the systems (h's) and into the total H. That is larger systems are more powerful but less efficient. H does not scale 1 to 1 with core size. This way power/heat does not need to be calculated per tick, and the system only needs to check for a boolian (H> sum of h's).
3. Each system requires a chamber. A ship containing many systems has many chambers. The chambers need to be a minimum size, lets call this C, that scales with the size of the system. The size scale would need to be small for fighters (~1block) but grow for bigger ships and systems. If C is too small then the system turns off. I would not give chambers specific rules or tasks beyond being tied to a system.
4. I wouldn't mess with returns from conduits. It's too messy, however I would require that chambers are connected to the core.
   
5. I would keep the "heat effect area" as shown.

That's it. It's a simple set of rules that could be balanced by changing scaling values. I would be extremely careful of complicating the rules adding steps or non linear effects. As I said this game is not really accessible already.

 

[Jojomo]

So because you desire a certain aesthetic, everyone else shall be FORCED to rebuild absolutely everything so as to fit? A crew & quarters system as I outlined would completely reward you for having a cool reactor room without forcing everyone to abandon everything they have built.

This isn't happening/being considered because of Valiant70's aesthetic preferences.

We all know we're playing a game in alpha, and that even fundamental, core game systems are subject to change, and that we may have to rebuild our ships because of that.

 

[DukeofRealms]

There isn't much concrete discussion that can be had, honestly, until there is a prototype available in the dev builds. We all can theorycraft all we want, but it cannot and will not cover every unforeseen factor, which may be critical enough that it changes most of the discussions and considerations.

There's no rush to jump right into development before we have a solid foundation, what you're talking about is how it's implemented. How is not what we're working on at the moment; we're working on what and why.

I really don't feel like wasting development time (and money) before completely identifying the issues and benefits of the previous system and understanding the potential flaws. "Theorycrafting" as you put it, is a vital step in development, this is how game development works, we flesh out ideas, make criticisms before beginning development. Of course, you're not ever going to know how the system needs to be implemented and how it runs before it's in. Balancing is a large part of the work, but that's not where we're at. It being a large part of the work, doesn't mean we should be skimping out on the initial steps, we prefer to let ideas mature before starting development, the community is a part of this process, that doesn't mean we're going to rush implementation

We haven't started development on this, we've come up with an idea and have decided to share it with the community to find out what's good and what's not. I expect to see it take at least weeks to mature enough to be implemented as a test feature (turned on by config) and months before it's tested, balanced and reworked in-game for it to replace the previous system.

You'll notice I said weeks for the idea to mature and months to test, balance and rework.

 

[Madman198237]

Just as the poor man's poll option here, how many people actually want these "heat boxes", and why?

I find them absurd to even consider, seeing as how, logically, a place too hot for basic systems to function is a place far too hot for human habitation. Or any creature's habitation, most likely. Whether it's hot with actual heat or hard radiation hardly matters, if it's not good enough for systems, it's not good enough for crew.

Also, why would any intelligently-designed reactor have ANY level of heat leaked under normal conditions? That's just a waste of efficiency under most circumstances.

Hence my opinions, but I really just want to know why heat boxes are seen as a good idea compared to the alternatives.

 

[Valiant70]

So because you desire a certain aesthetic, everyone else shall be FORCED to rebuild absolutely everything so as to fit?

YES. *trollface*

In all seriousness though, moving the game from "cram all of the blocks!" to building multi block structures separated by empty or decorated space would make the building aspect of the game many times more enjoyable to me, and not just for aesthetic reasons. I would prefer to design systems with that dynamic rather than the current "more blocks = better" solution.

Long story short, modifying the current system might be good enough, but creating a new system can be worlds better. So if we *have* to completely and totally break everything once more in order to make the game all it can be, how would you like the new setup to look?

A crew & quarters system as I outlined would completely reward you for having a cool reactor room without forcing everyone to abandon everything they have built.

If crew and quarters are done to the extent that it is more or equally practical to build that way, your current designs will be just as broken. I'd rather implement the best possible alternative if things are going to break anyway.

 

[Ithirahad]

...Ok, I should have said that there isn't much much more concrete discussion to be had, given the information we have. A lot of fairly knowledgeable people, and many less knowledgeable people, have come up with very different ideas regarding how things will play out... some very optimistic, some pessimistic, some somewhere in-between, and many directly contradicting others. A lot of these are good things to consider, but most of these observations are made without knowing implementation details that could completely change or invalidate them. For instance:

• What happens when a reactor is damaged? How does its effectiveness scale down, and does it produce extra heat or explode?
• How does heat damage work? How much is too much, at what point are systems affected, at what point will crew be affected, at what point will structural blocks melt down...
• How much of a penalty do you get for having multiple reactors? Will it be viable (if less efficient) to have large rows of smaller reactors, or will you get slapped with some huge ship-melting heat debuff?

 

[Valiant70]

Just as the poor man's poll option here, how many people actually want these "heat boxes", and why?

I find them absurd to even consider, seeing as how, logically, a place too hot for basic systems to function is a place far too hot for human habitation. Or any creature's habitation, most likely. Whether it's hot with actual heat or hard radiation hardly matters, if it's not good enough for systems, it's not good enough for crew.

Also, why would any intelligently-designed reactor have ANY level of heat leaked under normal conditions? That's just a waste of efficiency under most circumstances.

Hence my opinions, but I really just want to know why heat boxes are seen as a good idea compared to the alternatives.

I rather like the idea because it spaces out the machinery.

First I'll tackle the scifi reasoning here. These boxes need to be renamed. Let's go with "magnetic field" for now.
Magnetic fields don't generally harm organics unless they are absurdly strong. They DO mess with sensitive equipment, though, making it drastically less efficient. Let's just say the magnetic field is how the reactor contains its own radiation. As a side effect, it's also great at stopping cosmic radiation from giving your crew cancer! That makes the area both unusable as system space and excellent for living space. Reasoning problem solved by a simple name change.

Now the game logic. I like forcing some space between systems.
I'd like to see similar (but much smaller) fields around other systems to space them out a little. The spacing leaves room that can be decorated without drawback, and also leaves room to see what the heck's going on in there to make the ship easier to work on and modify. Once a ship is shield capacitor-stuffed, it's impossible to work on without removing the capacitors. Then you have to re-stuff it when you're done. Advanced build tools may help alleviate this, but IMO it's still tedious. The magnetic fields and forced spacing would be less tedious and more elegant in my opinion.
[doublepost=1486943354,1486943292][/doublepost]DukeofRealms , Could we please rename the reactor-boxes "magnetic fields" instead of "heat boxes" unless you're planning to make them cook people?

 

[Jeffenuva]

I like the idea of smaller localized systems. Random power reactor blocks spread throughout the ship never made much sense.

I like the idea of creating increasingly complex design considerations for larger reactors: drawing too much energy overheats the reactor and requires cooling chambers or etc.

I'm not super excited about the heat boundary requiring you to put empty space between your power core and your thrusters / shields etc... Shouldn't high utilization systems be near the power source?

I had just a couple ideas I wanted to add for conversation or consideration:

• Make small reactors more efficient (higher output per block) than large reactors. Maybe it requires 8 blocks to get twice the power output of 1 block, and 27 blocks to get 3 times the output. This would provide some advantage for fighters / smaller ships, which need a boost to make them more viable.
• To prevent somebody from placing 100 small reactors in their ship, you could say that only the reactor with the current highest output is active. All others are "backups" as you describe above.
• If only the largest reactor is counted, docked reactors could be included in the count - this could allow reactor core ejection on shootout rails, if damaged reactors exploded.
• Currently the only way to make a system more powerful is to add blocks. It may be fun if there were different qualities of reactor blocks that could be created from the basic, standard, and advanced factories (requiring more resources and manufacturing steps). The same could be true for other types of system blocks, like thrusters or weapons.

Thank you for reaching out to the community for input!!

-Jeff

 

[Valiant70]

To prevent somebody from placing 100 small reactors in their ship, you could say that only the reactor with the current highest output is active. All others are "backups" as you describe above.

This is actually a really good idea.

 

[Brokengauge]

Schine just wants to take the concept of engineering and design principles, and make them a fun and rewarding part of the game's mechanics. They're not trying to murder our pets!

I am excited for an overhaul, but until an actual, working example is before me, I'm not going to tell the devs it's the best/worst idea ever.

They want to add complexity to the design process. I am intrigued. I'd like to see how this actually works before I tell them it's not fun, and isn't fair, and have me cancer, and it stole my girlfriend from me, and it got me fired and it RUINED EVERYTHING!!!!

 

[Admiral_Kirk]

Kirk... I love ya,

We also need reactor breaches... cause

WARP CORE BREACH!!!

I complete Agree! We Must Have Reactor Breaches. cause of the Warp Core Breach :D

;D

Lets make these Star Trek Themed Stuff :D

I have already started making a Logic Working Lights Warp Cores. With then if this New Feature comes out. I will make a Fusion Reactor inside of the Warp Core. Because the Star Trek Warp Cores use Fusion Power to power the Ships.

Then I might release the Warp Core to the Public.

 

[Katorone]

This is actually a really good idea.

I don't really agree. I'd rather have the option of creating smaller dedicated power cores for subsystems. One near the engines, one inside large turrets, etc... Since power conduits will cause a loss of efficiency, I think this is the way to go. This also has the advantage of a) needing a lot less space for backup generators, and b) decentralization makes sure the entire ship isn't out of service because of a few lucky hits.

 

[Valiant70]

I don't really agree. I'd rather have the option of creating smaller dedicated power cores for subsystems. One near the engines, one inside large turrets, etc... Since power conduits will cause a loss of efficiency, I think this is the way to go. This also has the advantage of a) needing a lot less space for backup generators, and b) decentralization makes sure the entire ship isn't out of service because of a few lucky hits.

Well then, create multiple power networks instead of just one per ship. Each power network uses the most powerful reactor connected to it. This will still prevent 100 small reactors and limit it to just a few. Hitting a reactor would still be meaningful, but wouldn't cripple the entire ship.

 

[Madman198237]

Why force these empty spaces, though? Why not simply use a system that, by its very nature, doesn't scale (Without changing other factors) well enough to be worth packing into a space extra-tight, yet has certain (Again, LOGICAL) requirements that prevent it from being used to completely fill a ship for just more overpoweredness? I can't think of any system that does this while preserving present block-based systems (As in, more shield blocks = more shields, period.).

Alternatively, if we've going for the grand-redesign-of-the-game, why not make it so that systems are generally smaller because the more access NPCs have to the systems themselves, the more efficiently they operate. Therefore, you should build maintenance accessways (And code in a crawling function, please) to increase efficiency. Double points if NPCs are also required/able to put out figurative (Or literal) fires in damaged sections of the ship, or even make running repairs where possible.

 

[Shaker]

Judging from what has been added to this discussion, its more about less system blocks on your ship than just the power system, its a whole rebuild of every system in the game.

Instead of filling your ship with shields at the end, it will be the proxy hull "spacesaver" block

 

[rcmustain]

I am curious about the reluctance to incorporate a fuel and ammo system into the game. Missile launchers need missiles, AMC's need anti-matter (or slugs, or whatever it is we shoot from them these days), beams need chemicals, etc. There should also be some sort of reaction mass for reactors and/or thrusters.

Instead of filling our ships with x-number of blocks to make it more powerful - the creation of a complex and modable system of reactors (power and shield) that relies on fuel makes ship creation a little simpler (create a reactor template that corresponds to a size of ship, load it into the ship when complete). That system space is now a new cargo-type block (fuel cell, ammo magazine) that holds the necessary components for the system to function. Ship size remains a limiting factor - a small ship holds less ammo/fuel, but might be more efficient. Also, a small weapon system can only expend x amount of ammo (weapon strength) at a given moment, and the size of the system also determines the speed of reload/recharge. The controlling weapon block (say, cannon computer) can be modified with a value (percent) that determines the amount of ammunition expended, and therefore the power of the system.

Reactors still play a role - being necessary to power the components. But instead of being the single limiting factor of the ship in the way they are now, a reactor system provides x amount of power to x number of systems blocks. ALL blocks now are assigned a controlling computer so that you can shutdown/turn on systems to meet your power needs. It should be feasible that a single large reactor that doesn't take up half the ship can power all components of the ship, or even a series of small reactors.

The key point here is the need for resources. This system should bring in a more strategic thought process in fights, but also make crew more relevant. Your highly skilled crew can make more efficient use of weapons and fuel, and a trained engineer could float power from a system you don't need to a system you are trying to use. Even better, though, there is a whole economy that is required to keep a large fleet on the move. A smaller ship can equip itself with a few salvage beams and keep floating, but a fleet or titan will need to suck up a whole asteroid field after they death star a world or station. You won't be able to just go around killing everyone, you're going to need some allies to trade fuel and ammo with, or some support ships to make it yourself.

 

[dwwojcik]

The current power system of Starmade, and in fact the entire systems model has always struck me as odd. You guys are all used to it so it seems normal, but why the heck is the entire volume of our ships, aside from whatever we set aside for interior work, filled to the brim with blocks and blocks of systems? I really like the idea of having (relatively) small systems installed in the ship, with the rest of the space devoted to interiors. Imagine having actual decks, even on smaller ships, without having their performance being extremely limited. I'm not sure if Schine can pull it off, but if they can, being able to have both ideal pvp and rp ships all in one would be amazing.

Something like the heat radius is obviously needed to keep people who are poor sports... I mean exclusively performance minded (c'mon I'm just joshin 'ya) from taking advantage of the new smaller size to simply pack in more systems for many times the performance currently possible with the modular power system. I'm not sure 'heat' is the way to go for this, but admittedly I can't think of anything better off the top of my head.

I'm not sure about the power meter going away either. Maybe keeping track of heat on the HUD would be a good thing, but it just doesn't make sense that power wouldn't be something that needs to be tracked as well.