Criss, tbh I see some merit in the concept of stabilisers. I even see what the team attempted to achieve with it. Quite a few people want them gone, but I do like a mechanic that could affect reactor efficiency/volatility. This post is probably going to be unpopular, but I do want to see a stabilising mechanic in the game - as in most sci-fi, fusion reactors or even antimatter reactors require a lot of cooling mechanisms, containment fields, and other safeties.
The distance, and what it forces, is the problem. Usually these safeties are CLOSE to the reactor, not far from it, with the exception of one thing: excess heat radiators. There are plenty of heat mechanics proposals that discuss this. I see why the stabilisers were introduced, but here's an immortal saying from the world of education:
"If you want people to hate someting, enforce it."
As shown in the numerous posts above, interiors are no exception. Especially if the execution of encouraging interiors is this sloppy.
I think min/maxer meta builders will always be an issue. They have been in all the other block building games too. Robocraft had triforcing, Empyrion has spaced/triangled/layered armor and underground bases shooting through the ground, and I'm pretty sure (although only those who played it can confirm me) that Space Engineers also has its meta. Hell, even ARK had its lowered foundation battle rafts, or invincible platform dino tanks. It's the way of the game, there will always be players who will use every exploit and loophole they can find. As hard as it is, you gonna have to make a decision what will lose you more players: trying to fight meta or letting people build whatever they want, because every update you aim to make it harder for meta builders to build meta, hurts the casual players too, who just want to build what they like.
A nice example is now suddenly throwing in the beam between the reactor and stabilisers: people who were getting used to the new mechanic and adapted the new placement suddenly found themselves having to deal with a giant red beam of ugly in addition to everything else, probably going through a lot of rooms as people tend to place the core, core room, and reactor parts, along the ship's center line.
The most appealing thing in Starmade was in the trailer: Build anything, build everything. And the ability to make that anything/everything function, fly around, and shoot like a "real" sci-fi spaceship. You're hurting exactly that, when trying to force or positively/negatively discriminate certain design choices.
At some point the question will rise: Do you guys want to develop a game appealing for a wide playerbase, or a game appealing to the Schine team, and which of those is higher priority if both are factors? Because ignoring the warnings, advices, complaints and constructive feedback of players with 4+ years and more than a thousand hours each in the game points definitely to the latter.
Through the years, there were plenty of player suggestions that found themselves into the game. The biggest one was the planets' current shape. We, the community, can, and do provide useful feedback, so please consider that feedback.
Sometimes, what you want to hear the least, is what you need to hear the most.
So, the challenge is, to tune the szabiliser/reactor mechanic to
- Make several different ship shapes and placement options viable
- Still keep it simple and entertaining instead of making it a pain in the ass to build.
Also, PLEASE prepare tutorial material for the release. Just for the occasional clueless newbie who'll be even more clueless when he sees the old videos and tries to build in the new system.
