Prerelease v0.200.250

[Valiant70]

I will explain it as best I can without knowing the exact specifics of the system. In short, players were concerned about islands of systems/power becoming too powerful. This beam connects reactors to stabilizers and can be redirected more manually with the nodes. This way a new player does not need to worry about it, but an experienced player can redirect it for aesthetic or tactical reasons.

If the beam gets hit, your power is disabled. Not sure the exact punishment, but power takes a hit of some sort. Regen stops momentarily or something. I could be wrong, I just can't remember what the exact effect was. Hopefully now though, players won't be able to get away with building un-connected islands of systems without the need to fill that space with actual structure.

Of course, if you see any issues with this, please discuss it here or on any upcoming news posts. I can't say for certain personally that this is a solution, but I'd like to know whether this alleviates any fears you guys have.

That's a start. As I've explained in other threads, there needs to be a vulnerable connection to conduits in exchange for the distance-related boost to your power. I suggested using conduits, but according to Lancake there were computational issues with using blocks for that.

It sounds like checking the group association of the conduits as they were destroyed was a problem, and it gets worse with ship size and number of groups. This looks like a computational workaround in order to add in the necessary vulnerability.

We also need a fix for the one-dimensionality of the stabilizer mechanic. I haven't messed with this dev build yet (I will later), but from others' posts, I can surmise that the different (glitchy?) behavior of stabilizer efficiency is an indication that a fix is being worked on.

 

[Ithirahad]

ah, I see... So a longboi or island ship can make a strait line, but a shorter ship can zig-zag a line using nodes. I suspect the nodes and not the line will be the break points so if they get hit, your total line shortens, but this great. If you want to centralize your power and bury it in the middle of you ship without losing regen, you just zig-zag to your stabilizer, but at the risk of more weak points... this... might... work... might even make designing power systems fun.

if that were the case, sure, but that's not how it works. The nodes don't affect stabilization, they just let you route the flows in case one would otherwise be exposed, cut through the interior, or do something else you don't want them to, because having a weapon hit those flows will hurt your power (currently it knocks out your power generation completely for a few seconds; this will change though).

 

[Nosajimiki]

well that is not so happy

 

[Valiant70]

I've messed with the dev build and I'm not sure what's supposed to happen other than making the connection vulnerable. The new features appear to be in an early debugging stage, and only partially implemented. For example, Stabilization Integrity appears to do nothing.

Stabilization percentage does not change the recharge value, but I'm not sure whether that's intended or a bug.
[doublepost=1513718968,1513717323][/doublepost]Saber said something in the stream about the power update trying to make ships of different shapes and designs able to work. A bit vague but it sounds promising.

 

[Criss]

people don't WANT to be forced to have useless open space in their ships.

Would this not require a player to build structure between stabilizers and reactors in order to protect the energy beam, in turn reducing the useless space between the two structures?

a shorter ship can zig-zag a line using nodes

This is not the case. Although perhaps it can be an option. I will bring it up.

I think another quote I had did not get linked, so to respond to that specific person, whomever you are: The reason we are using a non physical energy beam is so a new player does not need to worry about connecting the structures with a new block such as a conduit. That in itself also improves performance. Experienced builders will be able to guide the beam through the nodes if they desire.

Another point I want to make, Schema mentioned something along the lines of reducing penalties for not having enough stabilization. Apparently you will get decent / full power at 20% stabilization. I am unsure of the specifics, again, but I believe it also increases the volatility of the reactor, meaning if it gets hit that something negative happens. I do not want to presume to know how severe these penalties are. It could range from power outages to internal explosions.

 

[The_Owl]

I do not want to presume to know how severe these penalties are. It could range from power outages to internal explosions.

If you could just do this but with a much shorter distance that'd fix a bunch of issues people have with it.

 

[Lecic]

Would this not require a player to build structure between stabilizers and reactors in order to protect the energy beam, in turn reducing the useless space between the two structures?

Do stabilizer distances still require more space between the reactor and stabilizers than said reactor could reasonably power?

No offense, but it seems like you guys are really half-assing a solution that doesn't actually fix the problems people have with stabilizers. You're putting a bandaid on to try and fix the EFFECTS of stabilizers being a bad system by punishing islands and dumbbells, rather than changing the CAUSE in the stabilizer system that makes these shapes an effective meta design in the first place.

 

[Valiant70]

Would this not require a player to build structure between stabilizers and reactors in order to protect the energy beam, in turn reducing the useless space between the two structures?

two structures

This is the problem. Two structures. If that's the only option, ships with one long dimension are always going to have some kind of advantage.
[doublepost=1513721816,1513721370][/doublepost]

No offense, but it seems like you guys are really half-assing a solution that doesn't actually fix the problems people have with stabilizers. You're putting a bandaid on to try and fix the EFFECTS of stabilizers being a bad system by punishing islands and dumbbells, rather than changing the CAUSE in the stabilizer system that makes these shapes an effective meta design in the first place.

Schema's not talking to us, so it's hard to tell WHAT he's doing at this point. I'm hoping the changes in the last couple of builds are leading into something bigger.

 

[Criss]

Do stabilizer distances still require more space between the reactor and stabilizers than said reactor could reasonably power?

I'm not sure this sentence makes sense. What do you mean the reactor can't reasonably power... Power what? Another thing to remember is that achieving more than 20% stabilization will still grant you more power at the expense of a more fragile reactor. Is that in any way an acceptable trade off for less stabilization?

I need to make sure that we all know the numbers for the old system are not supposed to match the numbers for the new system. If you had a ship with 5 million power before, it should not need 5 million power now. I am assuming we knew that. Just making sure because it seems reaching satisfying power levels seems to still be a concern.

 

[Ithirahad]

I'm not sure this sentence makes sense. What do you mean the reactor can't reasonably power... Power what?

Blocks, I assume. Shield systems, weapons, engines, chambers...

 

[Valiant70]

I'm not sure this sentence makes sense. What do you mean the reactor can't reasonably power... Power what?

The original pre-release forced a ship to be much longer than it needed to be. As in, if you filled the space between reactor and stabilizers with systems, there were too many systems for that reactor to power.

 

[NTIMESc]

The original pre-release forced a ship to be much longer than it needed to be. As in, if you filled the space between reactor and stabilizers with systems, there were too many systems for that reactor to power.

Is the goal of the new system to create more space for systems? I thought is was just to create more space (which presumably will be useful for something else in the future)?

 

[Dire Venom]

Just a quick question to the marvelous Criss , do you know if distance between Stabilizors and Reactors is a factor in the new system?
E.g will players have to build out in just one dimension for more power or has that been changed?

Thank you fore your continued paitence!!

 

[Kelpaz]

The more band aids that are put onto this new system to fix "exploits" the more inclined I feel to go back to the old power and forget this all happened. Hell I could even go back to pre rail since AI worked pretty well back then albeit without the fleet mechanics.

If the new mechanic is only intended to discourage certain types of builds (island) then it's a fail to me.
The reason people would build islands right now is because of the stabilizer distance and the separate shields makes it a good choice.

Shorten/remove stabilizers and you'll see people will naturally go back to normal ship builds.
Without the stabilizers builders would be more inclined to build the reactor where they want it, not where the system needs it.

Edit: Since reactors are coring 2.0 having a reactor half the size of the ship would make it extremely vulnerable too, I expect that would be a kind of self balancing issue.

 

[Valiant70]

The more band aids that are put onto this new system to fix "exploits" the more inclined I feel to go back to the old power and forget this all happened. Hell I could even go back to pre rail since AI worked pretty well back then albeit without the fleet mechanics.

If the new mechanic is only intended to discourage certain types of builds (island) then it's a fail to me.
The reason people would build islands right now is because of the stabilizer distance and the separate shields makes it a good choice.

Shorten/remove stabilizers and you'll see people will naturally go back to normal ship builds.
Without the stabilizers builders would be more inclined to build the reactor where they want it, not where the system needs it.

Edit: Since reactors are coring 2.0 having a reactor half the size of the ship would make it extremely vulnerable too, I expect that would be a kind of self balancing issue.

The only thing you'd have to do to make this system better than the old power is take out stabilizers. Everything else is great. The only drawback is that it wouldn't be as challenging, and having enough power for a given ship would be a simple matter of putting enough blocks in.

It would be nice if Schema would actually talk to us about what he's plotting to write over the next few days.

 

[Lecic]

I'm not sure this sentence makes sense. What do you mean the reactor can't reasonably power... Power what? Another thing to remember is that achieving more than 20% stabilization will still grant you more power at the expense of a more fragile reactor. Is that in any way an acceptable trade off for less stabilization?

Systems. Powering literally any system. Weapons, shields, thrusters, chambers. You cannot fully fill the interior space of most hulls with systems anymore because the space required between the stabilizers and the reactor is too large. You are required to have empty space because the ships cannot handle powering that many systems. Do you not see the problem here?

If the goal is to make players have interiors, this is not the way to do it.

No, I don't think being forced to make a choice between "do I make my ship a thin needle that doesn't have wasted space and has maximum reactor durability" or "do I make the ship look how I want it to look and be forced to have large amounts of empty space" or "do I make the ship look how I want it to look and have no wasted space but be forced to have a fragile reactor" is a fair one. Why am I being punished for my aesthetic choice to make a thicker ship?

Outside of spaghetti ships, I wasn't forced to make a ship that didn't look how I wanted it to look in the old power system. Why is Schine continuing to push for dimension based balancing when everyone is telling you this just results in people having their ship shapes deemed "not long enough" and cast aside as a good choice? Do you want everyone to be flying ships that look like Star Destroyers that got too close to a blackhole?

Stabilizers forcing ships to be long on one axis and forcing empty space on every ship that isn't a needle or a dumbbell is the problem with them. The power line system does nothing to fix this as of now.

Again, I must ask, why are these even necessary? Everything else about the system is good. We like the reactors and chambers. We do not like stabilizers. In my opinion, they need to be reworked from the ground up into something interesting like Valiant70's heat suggestion or just flat out removed from the game.

 

[kulbolen]

Attacking people who disagree with you by aggressively slinging profanity while putting words in their mouth - words that are nothing remotely near what was said or nor implied - is a petulant, childish attempt to silence dissenting opinions.

Can you not respond to even one part of what was actually said? Was it too reasonable to rage at?

no thats just what you said and now youre trying to manipulate words to make it appear otherwise.

 

[Crimson-Artist]

at this point I just want schema to humor us for just one build.

Criss since this new system appears to be an 11th hour work around it seems that the update will miss its projected release by the end of the year (Unless you guys r planning on rushing this thing through, something that would be very bad right now). If you could just ask schema to just humor us for just one Dev build and remove the stabilizer distance so we can place them right up next to the reactors I think you could eliminate 50% or more of the criticism you guys r getting atm.

 

[MacThule]

no thats just what you said and now youre trying to manipulate words to make it appear otherwise.

OMFG... dude...

You are so completely full of it you can't even keep your lies straight...

I'm not even the same person you were responding to...

At least figure out who and what you're responding to before you try to bullshit your way out of being called out for straw-manning someone with a completely fake position when you can't respond coherently to what they actually say. Edymnion referred very clearly to systematic abuse and exploitation during alpha testing and you accused him of blaming people for just playing the game.

 

[Valiant70]

No, I don't think being forced to make a choice between "do I make my ship a thin needle that doesn't have wasted space and has maximum reactor durability" or "do I make the ship look how I want it to look and be forced to have large amounts of empty space" or "do I make the ship look how I want it to look and have no wasted space but be forced to have a fragile reactor" is a fair one. Why am I being punished for my aesthetic choice to make a thicker ship?

Exactly.

Again, I must ask, why are these even necessary? Everything else about the system is good. We like the reactors and chambers. We do not like stabilizers. In my opinion, they need to be reworked from the ground up into something interesting like Valiant70's heat suggestion or just flat out removed from the game.

Even making it three-dimensional instead of one-dimensional would be a start. That would be "good enough," i.e. it would no longer suck, the game would be a playable state, and we could call the power update a huge improvement to the game and go on with life.

For it to be truly good, some more design choices are in order besides putting the stabilizers as far out in each direction as possible. Look at the heat system idea I posted for some ideas and inspiration. Use this, or create your own spin on some of the principles. It matters not which, just make it interesting if you can.

If the power update takes longer than anticipated, that's fine. What's important is making it something we will enjoy playing. If needed, I would even say push it back and release power and weapons in one go.