Power System Overhaul Proposal

[Gasboy]

I don't do this often, but.. I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in:



To me StarMade has always been about one thing, creative choice, and I agree power is most certainly the most restrictive system in the game and really does need a revamp. There are 2 questions here and I’m going to tackle each individually as best I can. This does get a bit ramble-y, sorry.

1) Miniaturization
I agree power needs to be less restrictive and take up less space, and the current scaling doesn’t really work well, so I’m 100% on board with changing the power system. Cool that’s out of the way, now we can get to the meat of this.

2) How it’s done
I agree that power needs to be revamped, and I will agree that the new system proposed is significantly better in the miniaturization department. However, better and best possible are two different things, and while I don’t think I’ve hit on best possible, I believe there is a better solution than what has been proposed.

First off, the new system is still restrictive, and seems to me to be little different than changing out the old xyz minigame for a new one, and that can be improved upon. If the goal is simply to reduce the size of the generators, upping the power generation per block would do that. I understand the conversion to heat mechanics, and I will cover that, however, on a purely gameplay basis, changing power generation to heat doesn’t change much, it’s just a different name for essentially the same thing and you try to keep the heat bar as low as you can instead of the power bar as high as you can. For all intents and purposes, this is just a relabeling of the mechanic. Currently, the proposed idea is very much like From the Depths, and while FTD is fun, I play StarMade because it is not restrictive, FTD very much is.

I’m also not convinced that the switch is necessary. Power is understood, and changing that to heat and getting rid of power seems very arbitrary. I do like the idea of introducing heat as another variable, assuming it adds gameplay value.

Lastly before I go in depth with my own suggestion, I would say that having heat zones around said generators, again seems somewhat arbitrary and restrictive. From my experience almost all if not all moves in starmade thus far have been to increase player choice and freedom, and this seems like a potential step back as increasing the power generation per block of power regen blocks would create the same effect and not have heat zones that people have to work around.

3) The idea
So, after a long discussion on twitch with several viewers, we came up with a rather non-fleshed out idea that integrates existing mechanics and allows for both freedom and creativity, while also allowing for miniaturization, as well as integrates the heat mechanic on top of the power mechanic.

Currently the main mechanic in StarMade is linking, the good old C+V, Logic systems use it, and when weapon systems were redone it allowed for a large amount of customization and player choice while using existing mechanics that players were familiar with. I believe that a similar system for power would be advantageous. Here is how I think it might work:

First, there would be an extra block added, essentially a computer for each reactor that allows for that reactor to be controlled (a reactor dedicated to shields for instance). Each computer would be hooked up via the linking system like a weapons array for power generation.


Second, each of these computers would be able to have effect computers as slave systems, just like weapons, to both increase and augment their capabilities. IE, a power reactor with overdrive slave system might produce 3x as much power but at half the speed, and perhaps increased heat generation. Alternatively, a generator with EMP added might mean less power lost from EMP hits or perhaps less heat generated on a given reactor.

Third, Heat can be used as a balancing factor for these systems and as the trade off for given advantages. When crew is introduced, we will already need living space and access to these areas, so having an engineering bay with power terminals makes sense.

Fourth, Heat zones in and of themselves aren’t terrible, and while I don’t have a direct problem with them, I also don’t see the point. I can understand the usefulness of having heat as a tertiary stat to balance if it is used to balance more creative freedom with the system like the master/slave system stated above, but on it’s own heat zones just seem a nuisance with no real gameplay value. As It stands, there would already need to be a coolant tank etc, so adding heat zones seems a little over the top, instead having the area immediately around a generator/reactor be optimal space for said coolant tanks makes more sense, again, this means that there are less restrictions for players and more choice, while still giving an “optimal” set of options to guide players in a particular direction.

TLDR: Power needs to be miniaturized, but it should be done in a way that maximizes choice, not restricts it. The proposed system restricts choice and adds entirely new mechanics, while a master/slave system like we use for weapons would use existing mechanics that players already understand and would maximize options/choice.

Thank you.

 

[ChibiMushi]

I am loving this prospect, however I do see one potential exploit. In between the first two photos you talk about the ability to add interior inside the heat zone since quote "those only affect systems." Unless you have some way around it, wouldn't this mean you could place a reactor in the middle of the ship, fill the heat boundary around the reactor with the entire ship's interior/ fill something like 75% of the heat boundary with interior and circumvent the heat boundary's effects to your systems?

YES!! That's pretty much the the point of it's design. Systems cannot go in that space. The ship must have that space. You can put nothing in that space or anything other than systems. Therefore, it is no longer a detriment to have an interior to your ship. It will be just as effective as a ship of the exact same size but without an interior! (an empty heat box)

 

[Raiben]

The heat zones are useful because they make this transition:

That's perfectly fair, however, the problem arises when you build something like this:

That has a lot of interior space, and little system space. What happens there is, you now have dead space that you cannot use and no interior to put it in. I realize that these sorts of builds are in the minority, but my point is that heat zones are restrictive in a way that I honestly don't believe they need to be. Again, I understand the point that you're making, and I agree that that is the effect, I just don't believe that said effect is useful for game-play. We may differ in opinion there, and that's perfectly fine, again, I'm just some guy throwing my 2 cents into the wishing well.

 

[Valiant70]

That's perfectly fair, however, the problem arises when you build something like this:

That has a lot of interior space, and little system space. What happens there is, you now have dead space that you cannot use and no interior to put it in. I realize that these sorts of builds are in the minority, but my point is that heat zones are restrictive in a way that I honestly don't believe they need to be. Again, I understand the point that you're making, and I agree that that is the effect, I just don't believe that said effect is useful for game-play. We may differ in opinion there, and that's perfectly fine, again, I'm just some guy throwing my 2 cents into the wishing well.

That design will still be more viable under the new system. As a matter of fact it will receive a MASSIVE buff. The systems can be smaller and still be effective, so you can fit what you need into the small system spaces and still have a reasonably viable ship.

 

[Gasboy]

The new system has gaps that cannot be stuffed with shield capacitators. You can fill them with interiors, or leave them blank.



Gains:

• Room to see what's going on
• Room to add decorations around systems or even on the systems themselves
• Don't have to remove other systems' blocks to modify a single system

The comparison to iron and diamond armor does not work. Iron and diamond are two tiers of gear in one system. They are not aesthetic versus diamond. They are good and better.

If there is space inside ships that cannot be used for systems, RP and PVP ships may be one and the same because... (highlighting as this is the meat of the matter.)

Under the new system, the choice is between EMPTY and DECORATION. Under the old system, the choice is between PERFORMANCE and DECORATION. This is why it is an upgrade.

No, you can choose to stuff shield capacitors into that space, you simply risk degradation and destruction of those blocks. Or you can use the "inner hull" blocks.

People could add rooms to see what's going on already. Schine said that people were forced to build a certain way. Now you're being forced to build rooms, where before it was a choice you could make. That's not an upgrade. If anything it's a sidegrade.

As for removing other system blocks to modify a different system, again, people could CHOSE to not build their ships as ONE solid block.

And yes it is a valid comparison. The effort to getting iron is easier than getting diamond. People get diamond because it is best. But you do not have to do so to enjoy the game to it's fullest, the only place where it is "needed" is PvP. It's the same thing between stuffing your ship to capacity vs an RP interior: you don't need to do so to enjoy StarMade, you will only ever care about it if PvP is your raison d'être for playing StarMade.

Again, the decision between empty/decoration or performance is simply a design choice.

 

[Raiben]

And for clarification, I don't have that big a problem with heat zones personally, my biggest concern is that this is an entirely new system that doesn't really do a whole lot to improve player choice from my understanding. Of course, no one can make a judgement until we see the system in action in a mock up or something. However, I'm just wondering as to the efficacy of adding an entire system around power that everyone needs to learn etc, when the master/slave system seems perfect for the job and could potentially improve player choice to a much greater extent.

 

[Katorone]

YES!! That's pretty much the the point of it's design. Systems cannot go in that space. The ship must have that space. You can put nothing in that space or anything other than systems. Therefore, it is no longer a detriment to have an interior to your ship. It will be just as effective as a ship of the exact same size but without an interior! (an empty heat box)

Indeed. As a bonus, it will probably make boarding more fun as well. Either fight your way through a corridor, or torch through the filler blocks.

 

[Lecic]

That design will still be more viable under the new system. As a matter of fact it will receive a MASSIVE buff. The systems can be smaller and still be effective, so you can fit what you need into the small system spaces and still have a reasonably viable ship.

No, it will be less viable. There's 1, maybe 2 possible places to fit power into a shape like that with the heat system, and after that there's basically nowhere left to put the systems.

 

[Raiben]

That design will still be more viable under the new system. As a matter of fact it will receive a MASSIVE buff. The systems can be smaller and still be effective, so you can fit what you need into the small system spaces and still have a reasonably viable ship.

I addressed that in the first part of my post, if the issue is wanting to miniaturize the systems, that can be done in the block config by making all the blocks output say, 100x more power/thrust/whatever. And I agreed that miniaturization was a good thing. The only thing I'm actually trying to tackle is the overhaul itself.

 

[Valiant70]

No, you can choose to stuff shield capacitors into that space, you simply risk degradation and destruction of those blocks. Or you can use the "inner hull" blocks.

There are such severe penalties for placing systems within that space that it is more efficient to leave it empty if you're minmaxing.

People could add rooms to see what's going on already. Schine said that people were forced to build a certain way. Now you're being forced to build rooms, where before it was a choice you could make. That's not an upgrade. If anything it's a sidegrade.

Right now, adding rooms downgrades the ship. In the new system, putting nothing in that space doesn't hurt the ship. It's an upgrade.

As for removing other system blocks to modify a different system, again, people could CHOSE to not build their ships as ONE solid block.

Again, this downgrades the ship.

Again, the decision between empty/decoration or performance is simply a design choice.

Again, the choice should not be between aesthetics and function, but between function and pretty function.
[doublepost=1486954235,1486954154][/doublepost]

I addressed that in the first part of my post, if the issue is wanting to miniaturize the systems, that can be done in the block config by making all the blocks output say, 100x more power/thrust/whatever. And I agreed that miniaturization was a good thing. The only thing I'm actually trying to tackle is the overhaul itself.

Miniaturizing systems in that manner will buff ships with little system space, but will equally buff crammed ships. That is not desirable.
[doublepost=1486954317][/doublepost]

No, it will be less viable. There's 1, maybe 2 possible places to fit power into a shape like that with the heat system, and after that there's basically nowhere left to put the systems

Place the reactor in the aft. There is a large gap with no space between there and the front. Put the rest in the front. The resulting ship will be several times as effective as the one under this system.

 

[ChibiMushi]

That's perfectly fair, however, the problem arises when you build something like this:
That has a lot of interior space, and little system space. What happens there is, you now have dead space that you cannot use and no interior to put it in. I realize that these sorts of builds are in the minority, but my point is that heat zones are restrictive in a way that I honestly don't believe they need to be. Again, I understand the point that you're making, and I agree that that is the effect, I just don't believe that said effect is useful for game-play. We may differ in opinion there, and that's perfectly fine, again, I'm just some guy throwing my 2 cents into the wishing well.

I think this could work just fine in the new system, You would need to put the reactor near the center part probably in the top section over the interior. The heat boxes can leak outside the boundaries of the ship, but within the dimensions of the ship. So most of the heat box would be that interior and empty space within the dimensions. further, adding a fin or antenna anywhere on the ship would increase the ships dimensions and make it even easier to find the space. I'm sure that thing has multiple power strips running down the length of it that could now be replaced with any system blocks that do happen to remain within the heat boundary.

 

[Raiben]

There are such severe penalties for placing systems within that space that it is more efficient to leave it empty if you're minmaxing.


Right now, adding rooms downgrades the ship. In the new system, putting nothing in that space doesn't hurt the ship. It's an upgrade.


Again, this downgrades the ship.


Again, the choice should not be between aesthetics and function, but between function and pretty function.
[doublepost=1486954235,1486954154][/doublepost]
Miniaturizing systems in that manner will buff ships with little system space, but will equally buff crammed ships. That is not desirable.

Ok, so we're talking past eachother here. Now, I'm going to make reference to 2 systems that aren't in game yet, but that's what this thread is about, so lets do this.

Power overhaul: currently it restricts building (yes it does, as currently you can build whatever you want around a power generator, and with the new system you cant).

Crew: From what I've gathered, you will need crew space, to accomodate your crew, and as your ship grows larger, one would assume that crew space would grow as well. Assuming this to be the case, it's a solid measure to allow for decent interior space that would allow ships to have pretty interiors and still be viable. It's a thing that all ships (potentially) will need and keeps everyone on even footing. We'd all need to build interiors to some extent, and if they're basic or pretty is up to you. In my opinion, adding heat zones just to allow more interior building is restrictive at worst, and redundant at best.
[doublepost=1486954647][/doublepost]

I think this could work just fine in the new system, You would need to put the reactor near the center part probably in the top section over the interior. The heat boxes can leak outside the boundaries of the ship, but within the dimensions of the ship. So most of the heat box would be that interior and empty space within the dimensions. further, adding a fin or antenna anywhere on the ship would increase the ships dimensions and make it even easier to find the space. I'm sure that thing has multiple power strips running down the length of it that could now be replaced with any system blocks that do happen to remain within the heat boundary.

All systems are in the rear bit that looks like a docked ship.
Edit: Also, this is just an example, and not a specific one. My only point is that the proposed change by schine is restrictive, and potentially exclusive to that sort of build, and I personally don't believe it needs to be. Again, my concern is with restriction of creativity/choice and as I said, I prefer the proposed system over the current one, I just believe that there are better alternatives as well.

 

[Gasboy]

There are such severe penalties for placing systems within that space that it is more efficient to leave it empty if you're minmaxing.

No, there isn't, sure penalties have been hinted at, but inefficiency and possible destruction were the only things specifically mentioned. It is undecided what the end effects will be.

Right now, adding rooms downgrades the ship. In the new system, putting nothing in that space doesn't hurt the ship. It's an upgrade.

Adding rooms only "downgrades" the ship if you intend to do PvP combat. Against other RP ships, and vanilla server pirates, your ship won't be disadvantaged really, it's only against other PvP ships will you have a disadvantage.

Again, this downgrades the ship.

Again, only against PURE PvP ships is this a disadvantage.

Again, the choice should not be between aesthetics and function, but between function and pretty function.

And to do that, you need to change the block system entirely. Why should another ship be better than yours when you've sacrificed some interior (something warships do, in almost every warship built ever) for more systems and weapons? Assuming equal skill in players, the ship with more should win. Always.

Miniaturizing systems in that manner will buff ships with little system space, but will equally buff crammed ships. That is not desirable.

Why? Why is this undesirable? This quote here is why there's quite a few people taking issue with the idea. You can't leave the PvP players out in the cold. You have to address their issues with gameplay as much as yours. You would not be in favour of something that trashes your style of gameplay.

Place the reactor in the aft. There is a large gap with no space between there and the front. Put the rest in the front. The resulting ship will be several times as effective as the one under this system.

No, placing the reactor so far away from the stuff that needs power will result in huge inefficiencies. It won't be more effective, it will be less effective.

 

[ltmauve]

How will the heat box handle systems used purely for aesthetics. Activation gates for walls is common(Why give us more colors in that texture Please) this could turn people off who build interiors

I would hope that logic and cargo wouldn't be counted as "cargo."

(And can we get rid of the dumb things right now?)

No, because that just changes the mechanics around without changing the meta. The point of the heat areas is to exclude systems from an area, moving Starmade away from a meta that is "stuff everything with blocks"

If the goal is simply to reduce the size of the generators, upping the power generation per block would do that.

It's not. The point is to stop the block-filling meta.

I also don’t see the point.

See Valiant70's post below:

Under the new system, the choice is between EMPTY and DECORATION. Under the old system, the choice is between PERFORMANCE and DECORATION. This is why it is an upgrade.

There are two concerns I have about this system: One is how this system will handle non-boxy hulls. The other is the fact that I like using system blocks in my room decorations, I don't want those blocks to blow up and/or disable my reactors.

 

[MacThule]

I think that a redesign at this level may be better suited to a StarMade 2, because it really is a complete reboot of the game... which is fine, 'it's alpha,' all well, BUT I think that the existing core game is well liked enough that I think a lot of people would prefer to continue playing it similar to how it is now.

I've already seen comments on an MP server to the effect of players intending to simply revert their client to the most updated build before such a change and simply not upgrading further.

Has the team discussed 'splitting' the game? Allow Starmade to be what it is, make any further development about fixing existing features, and reserve the sweeping changes to the heart of the game currently IS for a second version?

I don't know that your team currently has the human infrastructure to split its attention to basically managing 2 different (but very similar) games at once, but if it were possible it might be safer and better business in the long run, since some individuals would inevitably want to play BOTH versions and buy both. This would be a conservative move if a change this drastic is looming, because to simply erase the game people currently love for a very different play dynamic might be too upsetting for some...

 

[Panpiper]

If they scare some of us away with their difficult but necessary decisions, so be it, version 1.0 will be better for it.

As I have detailed in a previous post, this is absolutely NOT 'necessary'. ALL the reasons given for this change are either not problems at all or easily dealt with using much simpler means than destroying everything we've built and learned so far. This will indeed however cast a chill on a lot of player's enthusiasm.

I have not played Starmade for the last two months, ever since it became clear that a server reset was 'immanent'. Now that I know that all built ships and any knowledge gained is going to be a complete waste of time, I have absolutely zero desire to play the game right now. When they do their wholesale abandonment of everything we've tweaked for the last four years and essentially created a completely new build system that will itself also need another four years of balancing just to get back to where we are now, maybe, maybe, I'll give it a look.

Starmade is dead. Long live Starmade?

 

[Valiant70]

No, there isn't, sure penalties have been hinted at, but inefficiency and possible destruction were the only things specifically mentioned. It is undecided what the end effects will be.

I can't find the post now, but it was stated that the penalties are severe enough that empty space is more efficient.

Adding rooms only "downgrades" the ship if you intend to do PvP combat. Against other RP ships, and vanilla server pirates, your ship won't be disadvantaged really, it's only against other PvP ships will you have a disadvantage.

Regardless of the purpose of a ship, removing 25% of its shield capacity makes it less capable. The only reason this is currently LESS of an issue (it is still an issue) against pirates is that the pirate AI is woefully insufficient to pose any real threat to players who have a clue what they are doing.

Again, only against PURE PvP ships is this a disadvantage.

That is illogical. Regardless of a ship's purpose, more function is always better.

And to do that, you need to change the block system entirely. Why should another ship be better than yours when you've sacrificed some interior (something warships do, in almost every warship built ever) for more systems and weapons? Assuming equal skill in players, the ship with more should win. Always.

Be careful not to equivocate a yacht with an RP warship. I'm not asking for enough room to build a yacht with a zen garden and a party deck. I'm asking for room to stuff in a few bunks, a cramped mess hall, and the basics that real life warships have. Currently, adding a few bunks and a mess hall results in an objectively worse ship no matter how you do it. The best you can do is minimize the nerf to your systems.

Why? Why is this undesirable? This quote here is why there's quite a few people taking issue with the idea. You can't leave the PvP players out in the cold. You have to address their issues with gameplay as much as yours. You would not be in favour of something that trashes your style of gameplay.

The only reason to miniaturize systems is to make room for things other than systems. However, if nothing else changes, you will still see ships crammed with systems. The systems will just be more powerful.

No, placing the reactor so far away from the stuff that needs power will result in huge inefficiencies. It won't be more effective, it will be less effective.

According to the OP, only reactor chambers need conduits, and thus only reactor chambers would have efficiency problems. It seems unlikely that a ship of that size will need chambers, however. It is a very light ship.

 

[dwwojcik]

As I have detailed in a previous post, this is absolutely NOT 'necessary'. ALL the reasons given for this change are either not problems at all or easily dealt with using much simpler means than destroying everything we've built and learned so far. This will indeed however cast a chill on a lot of player's enthusiasm.

I have not played Starmade for the last two months, ever since it became clear that a server reset was 'immanent'. Now that I know that all built ships and any knowledge gained is going to be a complete waste of time, I have absolutely zero desire to play the game right now. When they do their wholesale abandonment of everything we've tweaked for the last four years and essentially created a completely new build system that will itself also need another four years of balancing just to get back to where we are now, maybe, maybe, I'll give it a look.

Starmade is dead. Long live Starmade?

This is what happens to in-development software. It goes through multiple iterations. Like the planets: first we had pancake planets, now we have pentagon planets, and soon we're getting something else? Is any of this really necessary? Schine could probably slap a 'release version' label on the current version and have a passable game. But they don't want passable, they want awesome.

If the version number is less than 1, expect this to happen.

 

[Comr4de]

So why was fuel discarded as an idea? Curious as to why the simplest solution was overlooked.

 

[Valiant70]

Starmade is dead.

Please don't start one of these discussions. Discussing game mechanics is more fun.