Power System Overhaul Proposal

    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Joined
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages
    1
    Reaction score
    0
    • Purchased!
    I'm not exited about that idea. It's a bit too complicated... and when the power blocks will be removed.... no more way to download old blueprint and it will totally f**k over any of my ships... But if the reactor must be put, make power and heat together as Kimiro said earlier. But i prefer to keep both power system existing with some changes to them, make them compatible or not, but keep the power generator there. (make the current power block a part of a reactor.

    Also power reactor make MASSIVE weakspot everywhere it's placed... i bet in some ships, as soon u lose a block. game over, u overheat infinitely. But a least... More place for shield :D.
     
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages
    1
    Reaction score
    1
    So as far as coolant, Maybe add a crafted block using water, ice crystals and some rare resource found only on ice planets and white asteroids? COOLANT IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: kookster
    Joined
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages
    46
    Reaction score
    9
    This system looks really interesting and I am looking forward to a change being implemented but I have a few concerns I think many people may share:

    • Will we be able to interact with this system like we can with thrusters or will it be "set it and forget it" like shields? Because right now I find the current power system very fun to use, and min-maxing a area with power reactor blocks and making your own designs is one of my favourite parts of the game. I would hate to see this feature be removed completely. Im pretty sure this is implied but we can build our own coolant chambers and reactors right or is it just place 5 blocks and connect with C and V? I want something very involved.

    • I know that small ships shouldnt be affected but it seems like that big rectangle heat zone will make me have to build all my ships in a similar style and have no "abnormal" shapes.

    • The new inner hull and focus on interior building sounds pretty cool. Maybe introduce some new blocks to make interiors more fun and involved?
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Jul 9, 2016
    Messages
    85
    Reaction score
    27
    I think schema should make an example of what these reactor systems would look like in-game.

    It should be a complete, downloadable ship that you can look into, albeit made with blocks that we use right now.
    We can probably do some more discussion there.
    [doublepost=1487122945,1487122568][/doublepost]Also, I think Schema should actually experiment with various systems in-game.
    As a teen science nerd, I think experiment is the best way to give out ideas/discussions.
     
    Joined
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages
    46
    Reaction score
    9
    Yeah this is important maybe keep the power blocks in the game as duds.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    What's their thrust to mass and what weapons do they have?
    As you know perfectly well, my point was that actually yes, I do know how to "design efficiently". It's my job.

    What units are you interested in for thrust to mass ratio? And why are you interested in it at all?
    N/t? 200 to 500
    kN/t? 0.2 to 0.5
    kN/kg? 0.0002 to 0.0005

    Typically no weapons, but we sometimes do small military vessels with a selection from missile, rocket, depth charge, or torpedo launchers, or mine layers, or small calibre cannons or large calibre machine guns.

    That's not a binary choice, xyz reactors can be laid out in many different ways, unlike new reactors which have predetermined effective layouts.
    (Emphasis mine)

    The proposed system can also be laid out in many different ways, and the current reactors also have predetermined effective layouts: single groups with arms as long as possible.

    You also ballance your reactor layout against vulnerable parts of your ship; maybe the most efficient reactor has to go through weakspots, so you go for less efficient layout that's more secure.
    You'll use exactly the same concept with this system: security vs efficiency.

    Sometimes, you bloat the ship to have longer reactor lines at the cost of space efficiency.
    Same here: larger reactors/more spread at cost of space efficiency..


    Reactor lines also introduce problems for internal railcomponents, like turrets, you need to work around.
    Systems will have to be built around heat boxes here.


    Then there's your docking tree aaand ballancing power vs guns in self-powered turrets that i can think of.
    Which you'll still do here.

    I'm not in favor of current power, i'd welcome a change, but you can't seriously suggest the new system allows more designs; it's another aesthetic concession that eliminates design problems to give more aesthetic freedom.
    If you'll read the OP, you'll see one of the ideas behind this was to make power a more complicated system.



    It would be really nice if you would back up your claims with some kind of argument. Also choice spectrum is not what we're discussing, we're discussing problem spectrum (assuming i get what you said right).
    I don't mind what you call it.
    Space will still be: balance efficiency against added mass.
    Power will still be size, location, number of reactors. The new systems has all this, and more.

    Everything you can build now you can build in new system, that's never been a contention, but the reason for designing a lot of the choices are being eliminated.
    Which reasons?



    Heatboxes do not interfere with rails, they're not system blocks they can fit in just fine. It's also removing reactors from turret bases, since there's no benefit from putting them there anymore, so the large base goes away.
    Why will there be no benefit to reactors in turrets with this system?

    They're just boxes, you fit them as close as you can, its like putting boxes on a truck, except there's no truck boundary so you're not even limited there.
    Really starting to think you haven't read the OP.



    The power system will be based on these boxes. The only product of the boxes is heat mitigation, so only 1 vector. They have different variables like cooling or generation, but it all boils down to 1 vector. It can't support capacity for the same reason current system can't, instakill ships, so capacity is not an option/irrelevant. The only variables we are able to play with are what blocks are in the boxes and what shape/size they are, and because new system eliminates the spatial considerations from this because they are surrounded by empty hull, shape has no impact on the rest of the ship, neither does which blocks we fit inside it, and they don't affect anything else outside of the closed system, making both free variables. The only variable that impacts power systems is how large your ship is.

    so heat mitigation is independent of every aspect of your ship except size, and affects nothing other than where your other systems are located, which also doesn't matter. This is why we get chandelier ships (best/only efficient outcome) and why we have much less to think about while designing.
    Again, asserting that there will only be one optimal design is ridiculous. Just like in real life and SM currently, designs will depend on roles, cost, flexibility, resource availability, operator ability, and area of operations.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Jan 7, 2015
    Messages
    2
    Reaction score
    2
    Problems with the current power system

    According to our own experience and player experiences shared on the forums, we have identified the following problems.
    1. Forced design choices
    2. Lack of complexity
    3. Too many blocks involved (number, not types)
    4. Focused on regen
    I disagree that "forced design choices" are a fundamental problem with the power system. Limitations and constraints are opportunities for creativity and fun through problem solving. And I have a number of fond memories of troubleshooting power systems in StarMade.
    Forced design choices

    StarMade has a great build system with endless options when it comes to decorating your structures or creating complex interiors, yet making a ship functional with all our systems can take a while and is usually a less creative process.​
    I agree that it can take some time, but I disagree that it isn't a deeply creative process. One of my favorite creations is a tiny bomber that was a serious effort to make compact, able to take a few hits, had a primary cannon, and a deadly slow missile, all the while fast enough to dodge enemy fire. Packed to the gills and aesthetically pleasing.
    It’s not only the power system that suffers from it, but every other functional system that follows its design principles. Currently, most ships have a non functional ‘skin’ and everything else is filled to the brim with systems.​

    Filling your entire ship with systems is the most optimal way to make a ship. Making any interior or extra decoration creates weaknesses on your ship. It also favours one ship shape over another, in order to fill it with as many systems as possible; Doom cubes.​
    I disagree that favoring one ship shape over another is a problem. Though I do feel that cubes are probably the least interesting "ultimate meta" choice. But again, I say that limitations and constraints are necessary to create creative/fun problem solving and is necessarily going to end up with one or maybe a handful of optimal patterns.
    More systems and power means a better ship, and there is no incentive or mechanic that would ever make a pretty ship with interior as good as one filled with systems.
    I disagree that this is a problem. Because for war machines, this is true in real life -- just look at tanks or fighter jets or turrets on WWII bombers. Similarly, this will remain true of "the meta" so long as there is no functional reason to need an interior.
    Lack of complexity

    Our current power system has only 3 different block types which would be fine if it mattered more in how you placed them. That’s not always the case and usually there’s little to do besides changing the amount of a certain block when necessary.

    This gets very tedious at larger scales. Fitting a bigger ship with power blocks is just a matter of finding the space for it. There doesn’t have to be any thought about placement and possible consequences. Additionally there is no way to customize your ship’s power systems.

    The current system makes power and systems purely a game of ratios, which doesn’t offer much complexity and increases the total number of blocks.
    I disagree very much that "there doesn't have to be any thought about placement and possible consequences" as I very much think about how the power system will fragment as the ship blocks are removed. And I think about redundancy. And how to wedge two or three systems in parallel. Which is all quite interesting, in my opinion, when combined with limited resources and how much time I can dedicate to the game.
    Too many blocks involved

    As the system forces you to balance the amount of blocks placed on your ship between 3 power block types, you constantly end up removing one type to replace it with another unless you calculate the amount of blocks needed for each type. Even then you have to roughly know how many blocks your ship can fit.

    This is fine for ships where only a few hundred blocks are involved. You usually remember where you placed them and changing ratios isn’t a long process. Each system block matters a lot more in this case.

    It’s not fine when your ship size becomes larger. Most ships have more than 100,000 blocks and it’s impossible to know where you placed all your blocks down. Filling your ship with the correct amount of blocks per type is a tedious and long process. Not to mention that changing it afterwards is even more frustrating where you have to dig for specific block types and you end up with a complete system mess.​
    I disagree that "it's impossible to know where you placed all your blocks down" - because I've developed a system, placing certain blocks near visual features in the ship interior or hull. And simply knowing that I placed the primary shield generators, for instance, 10 blocks in by 200 blocks long in the wings of my ship. I imagine other ship builders have developed similar techniques.
    Although additional build tools could alleviate some of these issues, it would never be completely resolved and any new system we add here would inherit this fundamental problem.

    The current system makes power and systems purely a game of ratios, which doesn’t offer much complexity and only gets worse with a higher total block count. Also, the volume to surface area does not scale favorably for balance, and there is no incentive not to fill up a ship with systems. The larger your ship, the more volume you usually have compared to your surface area.
    Focused on regen

    Currently you will always care more about power regen than capacity, mostly because it’s scaled that way. In almost every case, you want to equalize your power regen with your total consumption during combat. Your capacity would be increased to have a small reserve that equals this consumption so that you can use all your systems at once and regen the power within a few seconds.

    This results in a boring way of building ships since there’s little difference in power systems for any ship you create, it’s a simple equation and can result in a lot of frustration to achieve that goal.

    Not to mention that it’s hard to make the AI use this system when their capacity is always too low to work with.​
    People are focused on regen because it is the sole measure of sustainability. Because it is so simple, I'm not sure how anyone could be frustrated by it.
    Solution

    To get rid of the aforementioned problems, we need to turn the entire power system upside down. This will break most if not all current ships but to us, it’s a necessary step to continue on game mechanics without always having to find workarounds.

    As redoing the systems now will be easier, yet more complex, we hope you will find it a refreshing and fun building process. Additional build tools will speed up that process where you refurbish any of your ships.

    A short summation of what we’ll do:
    • Systems (weapons, thrust, power, etc) will take a considerably smaller amount of space on your ship. This could be ranging from 5% (large ships) to 50% (small ships) of your total block count. The way we will achieve this is described in the section below.
    • Due to systems being a lot smaller, there will be a lot more empty space the larger a ship gets. The player is free to leave it empty, or put in decoration and interior at a very low cost to mass.
    Wouldn't the "meta builders" just make smaller, tighter ships?
    • We will also offer a block to serve as an “inner hull”, which will be a low mass, low HP block. You could use it to fill empty areas in your ship, or replace it with real interiors without making the ship weaker by doing that.
    • Normal hull (armor) will add enough mass so it would not be viable to fill your ships with it.
    • Making sure that most systems are usually clustered together and not spread out all over the ship in small amounts. This makes defending specific areas of your ship more important and could be incentive to add more inner armor to those locations.
    I would like to point out that this directly violates your premise that you want to avoid forcing design choices.
    • As the amount of blocks involved is a lot less than before, we can add extra mechanics to the placement of system blocks. That will introduce complexity on a small scale since every block you place is equally important.
    • Provide context based information to the player and add “logical” mechanics to a ship to make it easier for players to get started. Also keeping the new system easy to use for small ships.
    These are awesome goals!
    • Change armor so that it scales accordingly for weaker and larger ships, without adding extra thickness to your ship.
    • Weapons will also be adjusted although that’s for another thread.
    Reactor design

    The new power system is of a modular design. Depending on your reactor size, you’ll have 1 or more components that influence the final result and define your ship’s capability:​

    • Reactor core:
    • Reactor chamber types:
      • Reactor rod system that requires built-in coolant
      • Heat shielding
      • Coolant Tanks
      • ...
    • Conduits to connect the chambers

    The reactor core (a relatively small cluster of blocks) defines it output. The bigger your reactor is, the more complex it will get. This means you will have to add and connect additional chambers to your reactor at certain points to keep it from producing additional heat. When considering new players, this ensures that building power for a very small ship is still easy. It’s complexity grows with ship size, so the learning curve for players will not get too steep.
    I like it so far...

    Heat

    We remove “power regen” and “power capacity” as we know them right now and replace it with only one value you would see on your screen: Heat, 0% to 100%

    Anything that previously used power, will now generate heat instead. Depending on your reactor size and how you build it, the heat you accumulate will be manageable...or it won’t be.

    If your reactor is too small for the systems you want to use, they generate more heat than usual:
    • Reactor has X output depending on reactor core (optimally built reactor)
    • Needs Y power depending on systems (weapons, thrust, etc)
      • Y - X = deviation
    • Heat generated is deviation + defaultMinOfSystem
    It sounds to me like you're replacing energy regen with...an invisible energy regen. Except now overdrawing your invisible energy capacity results in your negative energy deficit accumulating as "heat". This sounds the same to me, as focusing on energy regen, but more difficult to understand.
    If your reactor is too big, you would not generate extra heat, but you would be wasting power and space due to the new “heat influence area” or “hear boundary” system we will talk about below.

    Heat generation will be available to the player in percent by value. We will also break down for the player, what they can do to improve their reactor.​
    Percentages are annoying and only slightly better than useless. Please do not do this. How are we supposed to plan to build ships if we don't have hard numbers?
    Cooldown

    Heat cooldown will be constant and independent of how big your reactor is. What changes is the speed in which a ship accumulates heat depending on how optimal their reactor is built.
    So you get more and more invisible energy regen with better reactors. But once you exceed it, then you start racking up energy deficit "heat" points. At this point, I don't understand why cooldown would be constant. A capital ship that unloads an alpha strike broadside is going to generate way more "heat" and need to dissipate it all to remain effective, otherwise we are back at the focus on never exceeding your "invisible energy regen" that you wanted to avoid in the first place.

    Accumulating too much heat will affect your systems, and if you keep pushing to the limit, systems would even shut down completely. We could introduce all sorts of ways to have Heat influence your ship, or even have Stars influence your Heat if that would be a nice addition.​
    Great ideas here.
    With this system, detach the system from large numbers since your Heat levels will always be between 0% and 100% and your heat dissipation will be a % per second.​
    This is a little better than what is above, but not by much. I still need to know what my reactor design can handle and how much my turrets draw so that I can plan my ship build in advance.
    You are not limited to only one reactor core on your ship though, you can put down more of them but the heat generated by your systems would be increased per additional reactor. Putting additional reactors down will ensure that you have backups running if one or more reactors get damaged or destroyed during battle so it’s a nice balance between efficiency and sustainability that you can define.​
    I do not like this idea that systems make more heat because you put down more reactors. May I suggest an alternative that only your most powerful functioning reactor is used at any given time.
    Heat Influence Area

    Each reactor core has their own “Heat” influence area or boundary box, which takes the shape of your ship’s dimension box and its size is determined by the reactor core block amount. If this Heat boundary box overlaps with any other system, or another reactor core, extra heat generation penalties are added. This forces you to think twice where to place your reactors and it limits the amount of blocks you can use in your reactors. Your weapons/thrusters/etc cannot be within those heat boxes or you will suffer a large efficiency loss.

    This does create a lot of empty space between your systems, space that can be filled up with something that isn’t systems like interior.

    The designer is of course free to chose if they want to have an interior. We will also offer a“Inner Hull” block which will be cheap, have low mass and no armor, with a few block hp to not directly expose your inner systems on a hull breach.

    Their collective mass would be negligible compared to what your systems and armor add to the ship and they would also not add enough protection to where it’s better to fill up a ship instead of having an interior.

    We will also have some extra build tools to help you out with filling/removing that particular block type.​
    I would like to point out that this violates your stated desire to not force design choices.
    Also I do not like how complicated this becomes and that it seems very difficult for new players to figure out.
    Other systems

    Shields could be their own “reactor” with its own chambers etc and we could do something similar to thrusters.

    They could also just be a few chambers that use a Power reactor.

    We’re not sure about that yet though, it doesn’t matter too much as long as those system’s block count is kept small. Both are limited by their Heat generation so we don’t need to do anything besides buffing their values per block and adjusting the heat generation to make them work for now.
    Reactor mechanics
    The bigger your reactor gets, the more requirements it will get to keep heat generation to a minimum. This means that you could build a small fighter without having to worry about reactor placement at all. Also, building the iconic core + power + thrust stick will still be possible.

    When you build medium sized ships, not only will the heat influence area already affect the placement of your systems a little, but you will also get more heat generation in general. To keep this heat generation low, you can add an additional chamber to your reactor. And the more core blocks the reactor gets, the more chambers can be added to keep heat generation low.​
    So you place a reactor, that is supposed to provide you heat capacity, but right off the bat it removes heat capacity? I do not understand the sense of this.

    The Core and Chambers each have their own local heat area which is only relevant to the reactor design. The size of those areas will be its groups dimensions multiplied by a factor depending on balance. If this box overlaps with other local boxes, you get a rather big efficiency loss. This means each chamber will have to be independent.​
    Core

    As this is the base component, its size defines the base statistics/output of your ship. Currently there’s only one block type for it right now so you just end up placing them together as a small group.

    A bigger reactor core group can be connected to other chambers in order to combat growing heat generation, add additional output or achieve a different effect. We haven’t fully decided on the specific types of chambers yet.​
    So attaching chambers adds more invisible energy regen without any sort of indicator to the player. This sounds terrible.
    Chamber

    A chamber is essentially an upgrade to your reactor. Each chamber will only be effective at a certain minimum size of reactor. It could combat heat generation, amplify output, redirect that output to another system (shields?) or just be a necessary component to be there or else a Reactor core wouldn’t do anything.
    To keep your reactor optimal, you’ll require more chambers the bigger your reactor core goes. The specifics aren’t fully set in stone of course.

    The base mechanics stay the same however, each chamber type has its own build restrictions and requirements in order to be valid.
    Example: A reactor chamber could be reactor rods, to maximize output for a mid-sized reactor core. It would generate heat, if water is touching them that heat would be less. They have to be in a single group or there would be penalties.

    The total heat versus the total amount of rod blocks determines its efficiency, stability, heat radius, throughput and more… It doesn’t matter too much what we do with this since we can easily change it between updates without messing people up.​
    Without any planned hard numbers to help the player design their ship. Extreme hate this.
    A chamber will orientate on the size of the reactor core. That’s easy to adjust if needed.​
    I do not understand this.
    Chamber shape and placement could also be an important factor to keep in mind. A “Thruster” chamber (if we’re going to use that) could be great for rotation when placed near your Center of Mass. And great for a particular thrust direction when placed the furthest away from your Center of Mass on that axis.​
    I don't understand this, either. Is there a thruster core and thruster chambers?
    Conduit

    The block you use to connect chambers with other chambers, or connecting them back to the reactor core is done by using Conduits. A single conduit block has a fixed throughput but the longer a line is, the more throughput loss you get.

    You would prefer to have these conduits as short as possible.​
    Further changing the invisible numbers that we have no feedback on. New players are so screwed this way. And advanced builders are going to be constantly guessing. I don't like this at all.
    Kupu made some info graphics of this current system and how it might look like if implemented:
    • Example of a reactor

    • Below is an example of how it could look like in-game for a ship. Any not used space would either be inner hull or interior. You could also make interior within the heat boundary boxes since those only affect systems.
    • Keep in mind that the heat boundary box doesn’t go out of the ship dimension box. Putting your reactors on the edge of your ship will make the heat boundary box move till it’s not overlapping with the edges. It’s basically forcing the heat boundary box to be more inside of the ship than the reactor itself.
    I really hate this. Terrible for new players. But also, during combat, if your tail is blown off, then does the whole boundary shift? If not, can I just create my ship with some blocks sticking out, then blow them off myself to save the boundary space? I honestly don't see the point of forcing this on a player. Why not just expand the boundary box of the ship itself?
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Szlfsz and MacThule
    Joined
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages
    398
    Reaction score
    282
    • Wired for Logic Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    • Purchased!
    At this point in the conversation, players need an example of how a reactor would be built according to the proposed new energy system, everything else is castles in the air.

    We need a response from the development team, please.
     
    Joined
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages
    41
    Reaction score
    2
    Alright. I read the first post only, and would like to throw in some points.

    The ideas are basically great... which basically are one approach to solve the issue. The goal is to have much free room within the ship without the need to fill it. On bigger ships, 5-10% system blocks is a good ratio to have, to allow vast space for interior, or at least the option to modify the ratios or the setup of the system blocks. This would also allow system blocks to be clustered, and would allow them to be adjusted, as a certain order can be kept.

    There is no real need to go for heat instead of energy. Heat is, as far as I understand, basically just [100% - Energy%]. The concept of having energy as it is makes more sense.


    My proposal:
    The ship's dimensions define what the average size of a system cluster should be. If the dimension value (result of a formula, be it x+y+z or with exponents involved) is 100, 10 blocks of energy generators/engines/shield blocks would be "normal" sized. Now relative to that ratio (50-200%, in this case 5-20 blocks) system blocks can be placed in order to alter their functionality with advantages and disadvantages. It is well enough if that only applies to energy generators, while every other system block interacts with energy, causing a natural limitation of how they can be used. Using too big of all system components will drain energy way too much whenever it moves, fires, regenerates shields, warps, etc - besides having the disadvantage of having a surplus of mass and negating the advantage large thrusters would offer straight away.


    Examples:

    Thruster:
    Smaller (less blocks than the average): Less thrust, less mobility, lower max-speed, less energy consumption.
    Bigger (more blocks than the average): More thrust, more mobility, higher max -speed, more energy consumption (both passively and when used).
    Separating: Increases mobility generally, additionally increases mobility in the axis of their relative position, lower thrust, lower max-speed, higher acceleration.

    Shields:
    Smaller: Less shield capacity, less (relative!) regeneration, less energy consumption.
    Bigger: More shield capacity, more (relative!) regeneration, more energy consumption (both passively and actively).
    Separating: Less regeneration, more capacity (but energy consumption stays equal).

    Generator:
    Smaller: Less energy generation, less energy capacity, lower volatility (up to the point of barely having explosions), bonus on all other systems.
    Bigger: More energy generation, more energy capacity, higher volatility (bigger explosion if taking enough damage, and relatively less damage needed to do so), penalty on all other systems (the systems which in turn use more energy (by being larger for example) will be exceptionally powerful and compensate the penalty of course).
    Separated: Lower volatility, less energy generation, more energy capacity.
    -> Beware! Only generators depend on ship size dimensions, and cause a modifier to other systems based on it and their size. All other blocks will have normally scaling, mostly linear values. Having 1 block of a generator only will cause huge modifiers, but having 1 block of a cannon will merely make it barely useful while barely draining energy, because it is simply not enough.

    Warp (requires minimum block amount relative to ship size/mass to work at all - for every cluster!):
    Smaller: Shorter jump distances, shorter charge time, lower energy requirement, lower mass.
    Bigger: Much longer jump distances, longer charge time, higher energy requirement, higher mass (significantly increases inertia).
    Separated: Safer jump in combat (assuming it would be delayed or aborted in combat), shorter charge time, higher energy requirement.

    Weapons (generally):
    Smaller: Less damage, smaller projectiles/beams, more punctual damage, higher cadence, lower energy consumption (more energy efficient), lower range.
    Bigger: More damage (or rather DPS), bigger projectiles/beams, higher AoE, more piercing (damaging blocks as traveling forward), lower cadence, higher energy consumption (less energy efficient (less damage per energy used)), higher range.
    Separated: No effect - would basically gain its effect naturally by having the advantages and disadvantages of multiple smaller clusters.
    -> There needs to be a reason not to simply build in all types of weapons, as there would be enough space to do so. However, a good variety should also be supported. Giving them a good mass, passive energy consumption might be the way - but only beginning from a certain relative amount. Having too much options/variety should come at a price.

    Scanner:
    Smaller: Shorter range, shorter cooldown, lower energy consumption, lower mass.
    Bigger: Higher range, higher cooldown, higher energy consumption, higher mass.
    Separated: No effect. It only uses the biggest cluster.

    Stealth (requires minimum block amount relative to ship size/mass to work at all) (integrated radar jammer! no reason to separate them):
    Smaller: Increases energy consumption while active, less passive energy generation decrease, lower mass.
    Bigger: Reduces energy consumption while active, passively reduces energy generation, higher mass.
    Separated: No effect. It only uses the biggest cluster.


    On the side of ship design, there are no good reasons to put too many of any blocks into the ship, as they will not work any more, or become too ineffective as they will consume too much energy. Energy generators are however always a choice - having too many of them will impose massive penalties on all systems, rendering even the specialized modules useless - having too few of them will make any/most other system unusable. The average (recommended amount based on ship size dimensions or mass) is the usual way to go.
    This should free up a lot of space and order as intended, and give structure and a way to balance things properly.

    Also, additional variations by different block types:
    Energy generation blocks:

    Block A (*insert clever name here*): Regular and constant energy generation.
    Block B: Increases energy regeneration at higher current status, but lowers energy regeneration at lower current status. Best if keeping energy high at all times. Alternative to Block A.
    Block C: Increases energy regeneration at lower current status, but lowers energy regeneration at higher current status. Best if keeping energy low, around 25-50%. Energy regeneration however drops down below 25%. Alternative to Block A and B.
    Module* A: Allows energy to be used to absorb a part of shield damage taken.
    Module B: Allows energy to be used to absorb a part of block damage taken.
    Module C: Allows energy to be used to improve weapons, using more with higher current energy status. Best if firing when energy is high. But reduces general weapon efficiency, rendering them less efficient when firing while energy is below 50%.
    *Modules: Are used as a modifier to the main clusters. Maybe one is enough, just like the computer blocks?

    Thruster blocks:

    Block A: Regular thruster.
    Block B: Lower max speed, higher mobility. Uses more energy while turning beyond standard speed. Alternative to Block A.
    Block C: Higher max speed, lower mobility. Uses more energy while approaching higher max speed. Alternative to Block A and B.
    Module A: Combines warp module with thrusters, replacing warp by activating warp boosters, granting extreme traveling speed if activated. While active, turning speed is minimal, energy and shield regenerations are reduced, firing weapons is not possible.

    Cannon blocks:

    Block A: Regular cannon.
    Block B: Rapid fire cannon. High cadence, lowest DPS, low energy consumption over time, high hitting rate (fast projectiles), low range.
    Block C: Blaster cannon: Medium cadence, medium DPS, medium energy consumption over time, moderate hitting rate, some AoE, medium range.
    Block D: Slow fire cannon: Low cadence, highest DPS, highest energy consumption over time, low hitting rate (slow projectiles), large AoE, long range.
    Module A: Siege Module: Allows thruster energy to be redirected in order to boost cannons, improving DPS, hitting rate and AoE. The ship cannot use engines while active. Also causes the ship to stop slowly.
    Module B: Burst Module: Allows firing in quick bursts, increasing cadence (or instead damage if it is too quick already) and with it DPS significantly, but rendering the weapon to require a cooldown.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    The problem I see with everyone claiming crews being the answer is that even today the US Navy is constructing and developing systems which use fewer and fewer people. Humanity as a whole is probably not going back to huge battleship turrets with manned ammo loaders and sighters. We are moving to electronic controls and automation to do these menial tasks making turrets more capable and powerful without the need to put people there. While it's fun to imagine players manning turrets, it's just not realistic to imagine that a space faring race of people have not figured out the computational power to control a turret from a central location. This breaks so much immersion and common sense for me that it hurts. Turrets of the future will not be crewed in the sense that you think about in sci-fi movies. It even bothers me that the game purposefully factors in a miss ratio where the computers are so good at tracking that we have to account for for that.
    Is it realistic for scifi battleships to not be entirely manned by AI? No. Would it be more fun? Yes.

    I think this addresses the big issue with cubes of death.
    Doomcubes have not been a problem in possibly literal years at this point. Ship HP, armor changes, and missile changes have made doomcubes into an inferior choice in the modern meta.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: MacThule
    Joined
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages
    398
    Reaction score
    282
    • Wired for Logic Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    • Purchased!
    Doomcubes have not been a problem in possibly literal years at this point. Ship HP, armor changes, and missile changes have made doomcubes into an inferior choice in the modern meta.
    ... ARE YOU SURE ...

     
    Joined
    Sep 5, 2013
    Messages
    58
    Reaction score
    26
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Honestly this system could force me to quit. It will just make things way to complex for me to RELEARN and REDO all my ships from scratch when it take me months to build them to began with. it has merit and i agree the system needs redone but not with this.
     
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    22
    Reaction score
    5
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    I'm a huge fan of this idea, as proposed!

    I also like the idea of making shields more complex, but don't feel like the reactor direction is the way to go there... I feel like directional shielding is the answer (make me care about which side is currently facing the enemy).
     
    Joined
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages
    174
    Reaction score
    15
    Criss It seems that the community does not want this to be changed in this way. I would say table this for discussion later and to modify it to tailor to what they community wants. I hope you don't take offense to this but I am just representing what the community seems to want for now.
     
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2014
    Messages
    7
    Reaction score
    3
    So my first thought on the reactor idea, not big on the initial plan for it. From my perspective it feels like a mash up of a nuclear reactor and a warp core, though I do see potential within the general concept. Losing the energy meter doesn't really sit well with me, I feel having to monitor and manage both energy and heat could make things a bit more complex, such as a power drain or subsystem failure if the heat goes past a certain threshhold. I'm also curious as to how the actual power generation would work with this, will we continue with the "slap these blocks in and they poof power into exsistance" or will/can this reactor idea introduce the need for fuel sources? I'm not thinking of just mining some ore and tossing it into a core, I'm looking at tactics such as flying through a gas nebula while using a scoop of sorts to gather certain particles for the core to function, maybe even super charge it for a while if the right particles are gathered. Thinking along those lines, there could be multiple types of reactor cores, each one creates a different power type. So let's say your ship's main reactor produces power A, you'd have to build others that produce A or risk negative side effects, but that also opens the possibility of using various powers in different amounts to generate a new power that might have a side effect, such as a bonus to shield regeneration or increased acceleration.

    Far too many ideas and examples and I don't really feel like writing a Harry Potter length series, but I will say I find myself thinking along Star Trek lines about this. The idea of having an actual warp core is highly appealing and makes me hope the old power transfer system can be resurrected to work with this. For those that don't know, we used to have a submenu that would allow us to change how our weapons performed by adjusting their power levels, I'm thinking that system can be revised for the new power system so we could reroute power from weapons to shields, from shields to thrusters, etc.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Criss It seems that the community does not want this to be changed in this way. I would say table this for discussion later and to modify it to tailor to what they community wants. I hope you don't take offense to this but I am just representing what the community seems to want for now.
    Why don't you go through the entire thread and table a list of names for and against. Then reassess whether you're able to definitively claim to know what the community wants.

    And no matter what your results are, remind yourself that you aren't the spokesperson for the community.
     
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    6
    Reaction score
    0
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Legacy Citizen
    Honestly this system could force me to quit. It will just make things way to complex for me to RELEARN and REDO all my ships from scratch when it take me months to build them to began with. it has merit and i agree the system needs redone but not with this.
    please understand this game is in development and your suggesting neutering its bright future because you cant be bothered with making a change without even realising how much better the reactor system will be have you ever even played minecraft tech mods like atomic science or reactorcraft? those two can give some direction as to where we are headed and its gonna be great.
     
    Joined
    Sep 27, 2015
    Messages
    4
    Reaction score
    6
    This seems like a fantastic option! I hope it goes forward full steam ahead. [Nuclear reactor joke, most of them are steam engines/turbines when you get down to getting work out of them.]
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.