Power System Overhaul Proposal

[IronDusk33]

Heat boxes should be renamed "magnetic fields" because they do not harm crew. Scifi reason: Magnetic fields protect the crew from both cosmic and reactor radiation.

I definitely think this should be changed about the system. If a reactor can cause systems a few meters away from it to overheat, it would definitely cause some harm to the crew.

 

[StarWars1981]

This appears to have not posted last night before my power went out ... so I'll post it now. Plus editing. No, I have not read the intervening 11 pages of posts. I'm not going to. My eyes hurt.

My adaptation is this: the reactor core contains the starting "heat boundary" inside itself - 1 block. You are able to overheat your reactor by attempting to draw too much power from it too quickly. Look at a real reactor - you can throw more fuel in but you're creating more heat. As this "heat" builds, the heat damage boundary expands, and as it encompasses blocks (at 5% overheat it grows 1 block, 10% 2, etc.), they begin to take damage. Now, this should be exponential - you should start seeing close blocks take decimal damage very quickly and then slowly growing to larger hits. However reactor blocks are immune until heat hits 100% - at which point they almost instantly disintegrate and you have problems. This could include A. massive, single explosion to punctuate the fact that you pushed the ship too far or B. sudden lack of power generation and a LOT of slowly decreasing heat damage. To DEAL the damage, you use an explosion calculation every *arbitrary interval*. It can only damage the closest blocks.
This system would basically turn your ship into a microwaved cheese block, hot and melty on the inside and stable on the outside, should you fail to keep the heat down.

This one reactor can generate x power, and can have 9 (in a cube around it) coolant blocks attached. These coolant blocks can have multiple variants. There isn't just one "icecube", there are differing levels - so fighters need a basic "radiator" and destroyers an entire array of coolant units of maximum efficiency.
When that's not enough power - when you reach the hard-limit for pulling generation from the reactor (somewhere FAR ABOVE the maximum amount of cooling you can get around it), you build a 2x2x2 cube. It gets significantly more generation than just 8x, but generates far more heat the more generation you pull. But it can fit a 2-block layer (up to a 5 block cube) of cooling systems around it, giving it the capacity for significantly more stable power. Every layer added (3 blocks, 4, 5, etc) to the cube size adds LESS power than the layer before it - like a square root function. However, it keeps growing to fuel the Titans people want to build.
Every layer added also adds an extra layer of coolant blocks, however exponential decay on coolant value per added block means coolant capacity NEVER outruns maximum generation and indeed falls farther and farther BEHIND the generation to balance the fact that YES, AS ALWAYS and FOREVER ... bigger ships are more powerful. It costs more to have them, though, and these blocks don't have to be cheap.

How do you plan on accomplishing this efficiency jump to make systems take "5-15% of current space"?

Currently, the power system reflects what SM is right now. YES, it encourages a specific meta type of construction but that is a very BROAD meta, and any new system is GOING to encourage a specific way of building the system to max its capacity. There will ALWAYS be a "best way" to use the mathematics in a particular system. It is because SM has so many variables in play that there are many viable ships.

TL;DR:
Reactors should generate heat as a byproduct of power generation. Coolant systems reduce that heat. Multi-block reactors (in cube shapes) add more generation but way more heat, and allow more cooling system space (but not enough to fully combat increased heat gen). Power gen and cooling increases suffer exponential decay as you add more reactor/coolant blocks. There are multiple types of coolant blocks (trading increased cost/mass for more effectiveness by volume).
Heat (as a percentage of 100) adds blocks to the "heat damage boundary" which initially encompasses only the reactor core blocks. They and coolant systems are immune to damage until 100% heat is reached, at which point they nearly instantly disintegrate. Higher %s cause more heat damage using an explosion calculation just like missiles, except internal (relative to ship).

My word of caution is just that: Don't ever eliminate variables for the sake of eliminating complexity. It is the complexity and interaction of all the elements that make SM such a great game, even in Alpha.

The main problem is the new restrictions. Those heat boxes ought to go - they just restrict systems placement. Adding NPC crew that are capable of manning stations - literally a computer they stand at - to increase the efficiency or change the curve on a graph for a certain system will incentivize interior, especially if they have requirements. But you don't NEED to force interior; people who take pride in their work are already building interiors. And they're the ones who have done the math to minmax the systems they have.

 

[Lebowsky89]

Hello all,

Excuse me for my bad english level but i'll try to explain my few concerns about this awesome proposal.

- I spend a lot of In-game time helping new players to familiarize with the game, and i'm afraid this new system will be more complex for them and less user friendly for beginers to have their first ship. It could be very complex in the begining. So i suggest the old system remains fully functionnal, even if naturally less efficient.

It could offer 2 ways of gaming =>
- The current mode, would be the "simple" arcade mode
- The new system mode, a lot more complex but making ship far more optimized.

(it also allow us to keep using our old ships & blueprints)

Lebow

 

[Haventone]

First of all: I really embrace the Idea of having "real" reactors instead of the power system we have right now, since it just doesn't feel realistic in any sense. Furthermore the possibilities to add different reactor types at some point later in development, with certain advantages and disadvantages for each type, are endless and could really add to the variety in ships. So, the game is still in alpha I think devs shouldn't blench from a change in that direction, even if it breaks all existing ships.

But here are my concerns:

• Heat boxes forcing your interior the be in a certain place on your ship to get max. effectiveness. I, for example would like to be able to have my reactor in the rear part of the ship and most of the bridge/ crew quartes stuff in the front.
• While adding heat sounds neat, I dislike to have it exchanged for power
  
• Miniaturizing systems to much:

• The inside of a combat focused ship should be rather narrow and cramped. Having a maxed-out ship should require to cut down on interior as much as possible. As much as possible in a sense that some empty space - e.g. crew quarters should be required to operate the ship at full performance. But I don't want to be able to have a swimming pool and a beauty salon on a combat vessel without sacrificing performance. (I'm saying this considering myself as a 100% RP builder)
  
• I think the proposed system doesn't promote having different ship types. with miniaturized weapons and loads of forced empty space it would be easy for a cargo vessel to be equally brim with weapons as a destroyer.
• As previously stated by someone else, cutting down the block count to much could take away from the game (no need for cargo ships any more). However I think a fuel system and therefore the need to transport supplys could be an option to balance this out.

To end this post two suggestions:

• I like the idea of all systems beeing spaced a little and therfore beeing accessible. I could imagine a system group to start blowing up after it recieved a critical amount of damage. If you decide to put systems adjacent to each other you will get a chain reaction and eventually the whole "systems group" will blow up. However, I you decide to put some space in bewteen your systems, you will avoid this risk. Quite similar to the proposed heat zones of the reactor there could be a fixed radius where exploding systems deal damage to surrounding blocks.
• (Maybe a little off-topic for this thread, but since i mentioned it above): For the fuel-system, I see that it's desirable to aviod to much micromanagement, therfore the whole fuel systems should be able to operate fully autonomous. I'm thinking of ships salvaging the rescources, dropping it at a space station where the recources get refined into fuel. Ships, when running ot of fuel, would automatically dock to that sation and get refuled. While this wouldn't effect your early gameplay that much it would add the need to build some kind of infrastructure as your empire grows.

 

[Malacodor]

I also foresee exploits of this, Kupu's last info-graphic does NOT take into account someone making their ship have an extra 50m+ of rear length, by using Pick up rails to arbitrarily extend the dimension box of the ship, or have a single door that is placed open to extend the box, meaning the reactor heat will extend into an empty, totally unused area

And this is exactly why working on box dimensions is still a bad idea in 2017. I can make a ship with boxdims of 100*1000*10'000 with just 4 blocks, as an extreme example. Just make heat areas cubes and don't care if they go out of the bounding box.

How to fix chandelier ships: Implement break-away!

How much performance are you willing to sacrifice for that exponential 3d pathfinding nightmare?

I have over 1000 ships at my disposal. How am I to deal with this breaking every last one of them? I will also have to redo at least 100 blueprints.

This is alpha, and there will surely be refits necessary one way or the other. But with this proposal you just have to rip out old systems and will end up with far more space than you'll need for the new ones. Plus, each subsequent redesign will be far easier.

Also would this change the meta back to Core drilling? Shields mean everything. I'm assuming then block penetration would be seriously gimped to prevent the game to be chase to the reactor core

That's a very important point. With the exploding reactors we already got a mechanic that rewards luck-shots instead of skill. If destroying a single block in a conduit completely severs it, we'll need the means to protect them properly, which the current armor system doesn't offer.

Actually, expanding that idea to everything as it stands would be brilliant. Imagine turning off visuals for every block except power systems? Or thrusters. That could help a lot in every version of the game I think.

Only if it can be made sure, that such a system can't be abused for finding an opponent's reactor - not even by a clever modder.

 

[Andir]

This appears to have not posted last night before my power went out ... so I'll post it now. Plus editing. No, I have not read the intervening 11 pages of posts. I'm not going to. My eyes hurt.

My adaptation is this: the reactor core contains the starting "heat boundary" inside itself - 1 block. You are able to overheat your reactor by attempting to draw too much power from it too quickly. Look at a real reactor - you can throw more fuel in but you're creating more heat. As this "heat" builds, the heat damage boundary expands, and as it encompasses blocks (at 5% overheat it grows 1 block, 10% 2, etc.), they begin to take damage. Now, this should be exponential - you should start seeing close blocks take decimal damage very quickly and then slowly growing to larger hits. However reactor blocks are immune until heat hits 100% - at which point they almost instantly disintegrate and you have problems. This could include A. massive, single explosion to punctuate the fact that you pushed the ship too far or B. sudden lack of power generation and a LOT of slowly decreasing heat damage. To DEAL the damage, you use an explosion calculation every *arbitrary interval*. It can only damage the closest blocks.
This system would basically turn your ship into a microwaved cheese block, hot and melty on the inside and stable on the outside, should you fail to keep the heat down.

This one reactor can generate x power, and can have 9 (in a cube around it) coolant blocks attached. These coolant blocks can have multiple variants. There isn't just one "icecube", there are differing levels - so fighters need a basic "radiator" and destroyers an entire array of coolant units of maximum efficiency.
When that's not enough power - when you reach the hard-limit for pulling generation from the reactor (somewhere FAR ABOVE the maximum amount of cooling you can get around it), you build a 2x2x2 cube. It gets significantly more generation than just 8x, but generates far more heat the more generation you pull. But it can fit a 2-block layer (up to a 5 block cube) of cooling systems around it, giving it the capacity for significantly more stable power. Every layer added (3 blocks, 4, 5, etc) to the cube size adds LESS power than the layer before it - like a square root function. However, it keeps growing to fuel the Titans people want to build.
Every layer added also adds an extra layer of coolant blocks, however exponential decay on coolant value per added block means coolant capacity NEVER outruns maximum generation and indeed falls farther and farther BEHIND the generation to balance the fact that YES, AS ALWAYS and FOREVER ... bigger ships are more powerful. It costs more to have them, though, and these blocks don't have to be cheap.

How do you plan on accomplishing this efficiency jump to make systems take "5-15% of current space"?

Currently, the power system reflects what SM is right now. YES, it encourages a specific meta type of construction but that is a very BROAD meta, and any new system is GOING to encourage a specific way of building the system to max its capacity. There will ALWAYS be a "best way" to use the mathematics in a particular system. It is because SM has so many variables in play that there are many viable ships.

TL;DR:
Reactors should generate heat as a byproduct of power generation. Coolant systems reduce that heat. Multi-block reactors (in cube shapes) add more generation but way more heat, and allow more cooling system space (but not enough to fully combat increased heat gen). Power gen and cooling increases suffer exponential decay as you add more reactor/coolant blocks. There are multiple types of coolant blocks (trading increased cost/mass for more effectiveness by volume).
Heat (as a percentage of 100) adds blocks to the "heat damage boundary" which initially encompasses only the reactor core blocks. They and coolant systems are immune to damage until 100% heat is reached, at which point they nearly instantly disintegrate. Higher %s cause more heat damage using an explosion calculation just like missiles, except internal (relative to ship).

My word of caution is just that: Don't ever eliminate variables for the sake of eliminating complexity. It is the complexity and interaction of all the elements that make SM such a great game, even in Alpha.

The main problem is the new restrictions. Those heat boxes ought to go - they just restrict systems placement. Adding NPC crew that are capable of manning stations - literally a computer they stand at - to increase the efficiency or change the curve on a graph for a certain system will incentivize interior, especially if they have requirements. But you don't NEED to force interior; people who take pride in their work are already building interiors. And they're the ones who have done the math to minmax the systems they have.

Your tl;dr is almost as long as your tl!

 

[Top 4ce]

Valiant70 and anyone who is interested in my view of the heat mechanic.

As a recap:

I'm too leaning on the side of changing what we have but not included this heat boundary.

I love Raiben idea of a systems computer, and using it to a similar effect as weapons. It's familiar.

To balance "fill everything" crew makes more sense.

And finally, the heat mechanic could be the limiting mechanic where power of all blocks are increased, including power, and having heat management the limiting factor. Where the more something needs power, the more heat it generates, the more is needed to deal with the heat. The trick is how is heat managed.

How about the surface area of a ship?

The larger the ship, the larger the area but you'll have a lot more volume. If you fill the volume with power hungry systems, and use a lot at once, you create a lot heat into your ship. However the 'drain' of the is limited to the surface area of your ship. Sure you can make large sails to dump the heat, but you decrease maneuverability and increase your profile. Added that with a "signature" mechanic where the size of youre ship dictates how far away is spotted, you have an other balancing factor.

All this without heat areas and FTD "engine" building.

After some thought, having a combination of having heat dissipation be related to surface area is a good counter to more is better.
The initial amount of heat stored is also related to surface area.

Having a "heat capacity" block that is explosive like aux power that adds storage to the amount of heat you can store. With this, larger ships can risk higher heat generation. It does not increase the amount of heat dissipation.

Adding to that a mechanic to dump the heat stored by the heat capacity block, but you lose the capability to use that heat capacity for a time that is tied to how much heat was stored. Leaving the ship with only its original capacity, till the heat capacity blocks recharge.

It's a rough idea, that encourages a risk reward system and a way to not limit to much larger sleeker ships with smaller surface areas.

Also don't know how hard it will be for the game to calculate the surface area of a ship...

Anyway those are my thoughts and my hat thrown it.

 

[NeonSturm]

28 Pages, time to close this thread and make a new one respecting new information shine got from our discussion?​

 

[Madman198237]

Did it finally slow down? Only three posts in about 10 hours? Is the firestorm over?

Anyway. I still vote for a reconsideration of the actual mechanics.

Don't implement such a ridiculous forced use of interior. Make it a profitable option that does not simply reduce the efficiency of systems for being too close to the reactor. Too close for systems meant to survive incoming fire (To a certain extent, anyway) is too close to people, regardless of the effects/type of radiation.

So, instead, implement NPCs first. See where that takes you. Right now, the only thing I can see this accomplish is forcing the addition of interiors. That's it. No game-changingly-important power redesign (Except for the potential to add a new core-drilling mechanic), just forced interior. First, let's get the NPC-ship interactions in. THEN let's consider revamping systems to fit the update.

OR, add in NPCs to our expectations, and then make the systems match those expectations. So, if we decide that everything needs a computer for an officer to interact with, then it's time to consider implementing a change like this, that centralizes certain systems (Namely power. But we could do something similar with shields that still retains the blocks necessary. As in, you need to add a shield "reactor" setup that controls, perhaps, directional strength and allows for a specific access from the bridge that can be used by an NPC officer, while the reactor itself can be "tended" by some noncoms (Low-ranked officers that grant some sort of bonus, perhaps?) and some cannon fodder (Regular old crewmen). Running a fighter and getting chased? All shields to the rear! Flanked in a battleship? Even out shields and prepare for a bruising! Someone earlier proposed using the ship's bounding box as a method to judge where a shot came from, and I like that idea.

Then, IF it's decided that a power revamp is in order, you could carry on changing systems in ways that fit the power. But only after making sure everything interacts well with NPCs. Because NPCs are one of the keys to creating a truly, literally, living game. Where there is a REASON to walk through the halls of your ship (Besides relentless ego-stroking)-----because there's stuff that happens. Let's do that first. THEN we see if there's still a need to change power. We've worked with this power system for long enough. We'll survive a bit longer. Let's first go ahead and make sure we don't rush a drastic change.


TL;DR:
Add NPCs first, then rebalance stuff to fit NPCs, THEN decide if a total power revamp is worth it.
Pretty please?

 

[Katorone]

And before we can really do the crafting system we need everything else in place to know what really needs focusing on. Not a lot of point in revamping crafting right now when we don't even really know how many of the blocks are going to work (would have been a waste of time to fix crafting to make all the different hull blocks easier to make, just to turn around and implement the block consolidation stuff we have now, for example).

Basically, we need to get the mechanics of how the game works done first. Then we can fix the meta-mechanics. Then tertiary stuff like trade can be seriously dealt with.

Get the engine in the car before we start quibbling over what color to paint it.

You make a very good points. Mechanics should come first.

 

[Jarraff]

On of the biggest problem with the current system is it creates an unbalance in other systems already, if you want t high damage long reload weapon you have to dedicate a lot of mass to capacity where an identical sized weapon array that has a fast rate of fire and low damage can get by simply on regeneration therefore taking up less space and dis-incentivizing pretty much all pulse slave weapons. This of course could be remedied simply by removing capacity and make every weapon system consume power as they reload instead of when they fire much like the sensors.

I like this idea. This would also make it somewhat dangerous to fire a large missile at the beginning of a battle as you would lose a lot of your power recharge and could cripple a ship if it was too powerful.

 

[MacThule]

TL;DR:
Add NPCs first, then rebalance stuff to fit NPCs, THEN decide if a total power revamp is worth it.
Pretty please?

This.

I'm wondering if instead of a heat box or magnetic field, once NPC crew is in wouldn't it be more reasonable for reactors (and all other systems) to simply have a "service zone" instead? Rather than saying "this thing is too hot" say "we need x amount of space adjacent to the system for access to this thing to make it work, and it needs y number of terminals for crew to work at." This would dovetail a power overhaul with the addition of crew without dragging in unnecessary new dynamics that forces players to include big dead zones in every ship they build. Cause that's what the heat box looks like - a dead zone, to be filled with what is basically fluffy hull, something never seen IRL or in sci-fi. Replace Heat Box filled with garbage with a Service Zone filled with terminals and NPC crew hard at work.

 

[Feanor_Arran]

It sounds good on paper. I've got mixed feelings about it tho. To date, the power systems in SM have been unrelated to the propulsion; perhaps two types of power? Power derived FROM propulsion, and the reverse- Propulsion derived from power?

 

[Madman198237]

This.

I'm wondering if instead of a heat box or magnetic field, once NPC crew is in wouldn't it be more reasonable for reactors (and all other systems) to simply have a "service zone" instead? Rather than saying "this thing is too hot" say "we need x amount of space adjacent to the system for access to this thing to make it work, and it needs y number of terminals for crew to work at." This would dovetail a power overhaul with the addition of crew without dragging in unnecessary new dynamics that forces players to include big dead zones in every ship they build. Cause that's what the heat box looks like - a dead zone, to be filled with what is basically fluffy hull, something never seen IRL or in sci-fi. Replace Heat Box filled with garbage with a Service Zone filled with terminals and NPC crew hard at work.

Yes. Yes. Thank you. This is my point. Add in NPCs, play with them a bit. See what we want them to do when we're actually in game, staring at the loiterers. Look and say, you know what, it would make sense right now if that NPC was fixing this, that officer was running that, etc. THEN consider adjustments to systems to better fit the desires and expectations and actual coding behind the new system.

Because once we implement such a thing for this, we do the same for other systems. And rather than a service zone, forcibly defined, just have an area around any system within which you can link consoles, exposed modules, the "computer, server, data readout or whatever" decorations already in the game, etc. for NPC use. (Sorry, this is derailing a bit, but it's still relevant. A bit) You could have a system of promotion that leads to separated roles. Officers run stations in bridges or command centers, noncommissioned officers run localized areas of the ship, enlisted personnel do basic jobs. All of them gain experience over time. This makes it an investment when you deploy a crewed vessel. You suddenly have a nametag related to what happens. Maybe there's a fun name involved as well (See Dwarf Fortress). Now you want to see this crew get better, more efficient, more skilled. Preservation of vessels suddenly has an effect on more than resources. If your ships are good, your crews become good. Et cetera. Now, back on topic.

Whoops, forgot my line of thinking xD too much NPC thought.

EDIT: And the reason it's not forced is because the NPCs add bonuses, not functionality. Important difference. You aren't required to have NPCs, you could just have more systems space, but a skilled crew should be more of an asset than any number of systems blocks (Well, you know, up to the point where that skilled crew can be killed instantly by some sort of humongous blob of systems blocks)

 

[Jojomo]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I read the quote to read the words he put in your mouth, but couldn't find a single one, either direct or implied.
[doublepost=1487037489,1487037040][/doublepost]

Right now, the only thing I can see this accomplish is forcing the addition of interiors. That's it.

The OP explicitly states that this wouldn't force the addition of interiors. It forces the addition of empty space, internal or external (within bounds), that can optionally be used for interiors.

 

[Madman198237]

Yes. Interior empty space. The goal is to force the addition of interiors (Unless they just want to stress-test their occlusion culling that doesn't yet exist in the most annoying way possible). Or, at least, it appears to be.

But seriously, I just outlined a dream vision of NPCs, and all you can do is poke at my language? I'm wounded, wounded I tell you

 

[Jojomo]

Yes. Interior empty space.

Or exterior empty space (within bounds).

The goal is to force the addition of interiors (Unless they just want to stress-test their occlusion culling that doesn't yet exist in the most annoying way possible). Or, at least, it appears to be.

But seriously, I just outlined a dream vision of NPCs, and all you can do is poke at my language? I'm wounded, wounded I tell you

Your language wasn't an issue. You were very clear about forced interiors. You even repeated it in the same post.

As for NPCs, I personally would be bored to death if I had to build furniture and rooms for NPCs.

 

[Madman198237]

...Joke, thank you very much.

Still, it's forcing something, whether that's meant to be interior or an excuse to go make external reactor boxes, well, it's forcing something. That's for sure.

 

[Jojomo]

...Joke, thank you very much.

Still, it's forcing something, whether that's meant to be interior or an excuse to go make external reactor boxes, well, it's forcing something. That's for sure.

Of course - all rules force something. The current power system forces large triple armed reactors.

 

[NeverSolus]

I continue to fail to see a reason for this. While T regarded my post regarding a single point, is no one considering the ultimate meta change this would force? Aiming for Power reactors would be simple, and quick. I love my interior design, but this update would ruin the current use of building for functionality and destroy a good deal of the challenges associated with it.

Also, Vent, Deathstar, etc. Not something anyone wants to deal with.

Let alone the lag issue, the coding issues, and finally the idea of punishing people for not interior designing when it should be a viable trade-off. I like my interior designs, but it's a sacrifice I make willingly. I do not understand why that willing sacrifice should become a heavy-handedly forced situation for everyone.

I second others here in saying we should wait for the crew update before changing this. The crew update fixes the interior design arguments instantly and will leave us with the meat of this proposal, which should make it easier to discuss. To those of you saying 'That could be a long way off!' well, yeah, and so could this system. Why not focus on things we know need to be implemented before rewriting things that may need to be altered?

Also, please consider that Missile + Missile is called 'Heat seeking.' Please consider the ramifications of what this system change would give people the abilities to do. Beams would need another unnecessary nerf, Miss+Miss would require either unique coding or at least renaming, and god knows what else.

Above all other reasons I dislike this proposals application because it would force a meta. All ships would suddenly have the same glaring weakness, which while it would add challenge it adds a silly one. Currently, you need ion to take down shield boats, fast action turrets or stop/slow to take out speedsters, and so on. In application this would change all ships would have the same theoretical target point. Not a target point in star-trek style, but the same exact one for every ship.

TL;DR - How is nerfing everything on everyone a fix to any system when the crew update may remedy a lot of these issues to begin with?