Power usage

[kikaha]

Hello !​

One more thread about power ! But this one different i believe.

Basically what i suggest is we change nothing about power output and sofcaping.

What we change is the way power is used.​

As it stands now, you put down a power reactor block and it gives power to the entire structure. What a waste ! Its like using radiator as wall or something.

What i propose is to have every systems on the entity to have to be "plugged in" either physically or via "C" and "V" to be fonctionnal.
Otherwise the power plant(s) will only be sitting there and do nothing.
Also each group of power reactor modules would be independant from each other unless touching. The soft cap would stay but only for each group of power generators, not for the whole ship/station.

That mean you would have a plant for the core and all little systems such as lights and plex doors, gravity and docks (not enhancers) then a power plant for this system of weapons or that defensive system, or a big one for all weapons, one for engines, one for jump drive etc. You can have as many power plants as you like (takes room :p )

You can control exactly what goes where.
In case of emergency (battle) the crew or yourself can go and reroute power physically to needed sytems... If a power plant get shot the system linked to it goes down (non functional without necessarily being destroyed itself).

Well i hope i exposed my idea clearly.

Kikaha

 

[NTIMESc]

This is an interesting idea, but I always assumed that "power conduits" were running through the one meter thick walls.

What about a variation of this, where reactors act normally as they do now, but with added features:

• placing reactors adjacent to other system blocks gives a power bonus to them
• C/V linking is between separate groups of power reactors to re-route power

Also, while browsing through the BlockConfig.xml I notice that blocks have a <conductivity> property. I wonder if this could be used somehow in power distribution.

 

[nightrune]

This is very complicated, and would be a massive barrier to new players. Count my vote out.

 

[NTIMESc]

This is very complicated, and would be a massive barrier to new players. Count my vote out.

What would you vote for? My suggested revision would change nothing for new players.

 

[kikaha]

This is very complicated, and would be a massive barrier to new players. Count my vote out.

What do you find complicated in my suggestion ?

 

[Comradecolonel]

I have to agree that it seems quite complicated. The idea itself is simple and easy to understand but it adds a lot more into ship building and the game code. You would have to build power systems for each individual system which is a lot more work then simply placing blocks down. On top of that the game would then need to keep track of the power status of could be thousands of systems on a single ship.

While it sounds very cool I don't feel that this would be worth it at this point. Every ship in the game would have to be redesigned and that just seems like a lot of work for not much gain. The way power systems work isn't perfect but I don't think we should completely change the mechanic.

 

[kikaha]

All the systems on a ship thats about let see, jumpdrive, anti jump scanner, engines, weapons systems def systems and ship core (doors, rail, etc) about 20/30 systemes max for a fairly decent sized ship.
You don' have to build a power system for each individual system. You build a power output and link that power output to the system/s you want/need.
You can still build only one power output aand link every systems to it.
Wether its a physical link or a "C" "V" thing is still not definitive.

 

[nightrune]

All the systems on a ship thats about let see, jumpdrive, anti jump scanner, engines, weapons systems def systems and ship core (doors, rail, etc) about 20/30 systemes max for a fairly decent sized ship.
You don' have to build a power system for each individual system. You build a power output and link that power output to the system/s you want/need.
You can still build only one power output aand link every systems to it.
Wether its a physical link or a "C" "V" thing is still not definitive.

What do you find complicated in my suggestion ?

I have to agree that it seems quite complicated. The idea itself is simple and easy to understand but it adds a lot more into ship building and the game code. You would have to build power systems for each individual system which is a lot more work then simply placing blocks down. On top of that the game would then need to keep track of the power status of could be thousands of systems on a single ship.

While it sounds very cool I don't feel that this would be worth it at this point. Every ship in the game would have to be redesigned and that just seems like a lot of work for not much gain. The way power systems work isn't perfect but I don't think we should completely change the mechanic.

I agree completely with comradecolonel. It sounds fun and sounds like it would add depth and complexity but in practice I don't think it will.

 

[kikaha]

But, but what is complex with that ?

When you put down say a missile launcher you add poqer until you can fire it yes ?
Then you add more power so you can fire it and use your engine full throttle at the same time. And so on for the vast majority of your systems onboard.

Well instead of powering the whole ship (and get soft capped once and for all) you power your systems with a power plant that will energise only what its linked at. Use "C" and "V". No more complicated than connecting computers and their modules. Bonus is you have several softcap. One for each group of power reactor.

So please explain what you find complicated with that ?

 

[Lukwan]

If you are proposing a separate soft-cap for each power reactor within an entity then you are essentially proposing that soft-caps become irrelevant. Can the Devs control game-balance without a soft-cap? How would you propose to deal with gigantism? Are you OK with making ship-repairs for battle damage even harder?

So please explain what you find complicated with that ?

Its not a matter complexity for us 1400 hour veterans. This will affect the learning-curve and trouble-shooting for new players. This change means a newbie can make a cannon weapon, link controls correctly have sufficient power, load the toolbar with correct icon and STILL not have a functional system. Its just one more mission-critical item in a game full of depth and detail.

Most importantly, I want to know what this adds to the game. Does it solve a problem, make things easier, add depth or increase enjoyment?

 

[hinkhenk]

Come to think of it, its not realy the reactors that matters when using the said energy gained, but the power capacitors.
The ship draws power from the "batteries" wich in turn would need to be changed aswell to work with this system.
the generator just charges the batteries.
The fact that smaller vessels does not need power capacitors to work, they do not need 2mil/e for each system either.

I am sorry, but i can not support this suggestion, eventhough i do not like how docked power generators work either.

 

[Comradecolonel]

Again the system itself is not complicated but it makes planning and implementing power systems require even more thought. Lets take an example.

I have a fighter that has 75,000 regen split up into 5 reactor groups. It has many of the systems you mentioned. Now the regen for thrust alone is almost half my power usage. With the way I make power systems (power groups across the dimensions of my ship) I now need to figure out how five equal power groups are split against 30 odd unequal systems. I will end up sacrificing either efficiency or output to have there be no wasted power in my systems.

Its a lose lose situation that I don't see adding anything to the game. Theres also the topics of capacitors and line based power systems. Oh and emp and ....yea it effects way more than it seems on the surface. This needs to be thought out way more to even seem viable.

 

[kikaha]

... I'm going to think about all that. Not abandonning my idea yet tho. :p