Prerelease v0.200.250

[Dire Venom]

Thats a stupid thing to have to do that only increases entity count and therefore lag.

Just like the current missile system, To get through point defense you have to spam hundreds of no cost 1/1 missiles.
To defend against it you have to spam multitudes of 1/1 Cannon PD Entities on your ship.
And they both keep on going up, and up, and up.
Just a recipie for disaster and lag -_-

I dearly hope this weapon update works out.

Regarding jump/scanners/interdiction I'm suprised they have been removed as physical systems.
How I thought they were to be implimented were as regular systems, WITH chambers enchancing them, not magicaly representing and restricting them.

 

[Valiant70]

Just like the current missile system, To get through point defense you have to spam hundreds of no cost 1/1 missiles.
To defend against it you have to spam multitudes of 1/1 Cannon PD Entities on your ship.
And they both keep on going up, and up, and up.
Just a recipie for disaster and lag -_-

I dearly hope this weapon update works out.

Regarding jump/scanners/interdiction I'm suprised they have been removed as physical systems.
How I thought they were to be implimented were as regular systems, WITH chambers enchancing them, not magicaly representing and restricting them.

I'm all right with scanners and stealth being full-on chambers. Those are specific roles. Jump, not so much. Interdiction is mainly for a hunter-killer role, so it's all right for that to be a chamber. It shouldn't take more than about 25% chamber capacity though, IMO.

 

[Non]

I dearly hope this weapon update works out.

If they respond to advice for the weapons update in the same way that they did for this one, it won't, beyond that I don't want to get into a discussion about weapons right here.

WITH chambers enchancing them

Even that I have a problem with, but its at least better.
[doublepost=1513021558,1513021267][/doublepost]

Interdiction is mainly for a hunter-killer role, so it's all right for that to be a chamber. It shouldn't take more than about 25% chamber capacity though, IMO.

Another part of why I dislike it is that chambers are based on reactor size, but interdiction/scanning are related to my opponents abilities rather than my own, so I see no reason why It should be based my reactor mass rather than their stealth capability.

Also, turrets should allow multiple AI blocks (obviously only one active at a time) so that I can switch between select fire, manual aim, and any using logic.

 

[Valiant70]

so I see no reason why It should be based my reactor mass rather than their stealth capability.

That's so a fighter can hide from your cruiser. If it were based on total block count, bigger ships would always win. In other words a fighter would never see the Death Star coming. Talk about weird.

 

[Non]

That's so a fighter can hide from your cruiser. If it were based on total block count, bigger ships would always win. In other words a fighter would never see the Death Star coming. Talk about weird.

I never said thats what I wanted, nor did I imply it. My exact terminology:

stealth capability

Stealth capability should be proportional to stealth chambers one has, but inversely proportional to mass.

 

[Valiant70]

I never said thats what I wanted, nor did I imply it. My exact terminology:

Stealth capability should be proportional to stealth chambers one has, but inversely proportional to mass.

If that's not what you meant, I still don't know what you did mean.

 

[Non]

I still don't know what you did mean.

proportional to stealth chambers one has

The more stealth chamber s a ship has the harder it should be to detect.

inversely proportional to mass

The heavier a ship is the easier it is to detect.

Got it now?

 

[Valiant70]

The more stealth chamber s a ship has the harder it should be to detect.

The heavier a ship is the easier it is to detect.

Got it now?

That makes sense, but why do you want it that way? We won't be able to build black ops battleships at all.
[doublepost=1513022618,1513022553][/doublepost]OH! I know. We could do it based on both size and range. The larger the ship, the further away it has to be for its stealth to be effective. Very small ships could be right in your face and still invisible.

 

[Non]

We won't be able to build black ops battleships at all.

So? The primary use of jamming right now is for not being detected out of combat, because as soon as someone gets hit they pop their scanner and they can see the enemy anyway.

 

[Valiant70]

So? The primary use of jamming right now is for not being detected out of combat, because as soon as someone gets hit they pop their scanner and they can see the enemy anyway.

A black ops battleship could sneak in somewhere before revealing itself and attacking. If you nerf it too much based on mass, only tiny ships could do that making the strategy inconsequential.

 

[Non]

A black ops battleship could sneak in somewhere before revealing itself and attacking. If you nerf it too much based on mass, only tiny ships could do that making the strategy inconsequential.

I dont want that to be a valid strategy, because then it becomes the only strategy, if you can win without risking your ship (via cloaked and jammed alpha bursts) there is no reason to ever engage in any other manner, especially if you can jump out if things go wrong.

 

[Valiant70]

I dont want that to be a valid strategy, because then it becomes the only strategy, if you can win without risking your ship (via cloaked and jammed alpha bursts) there is no reason to ever engage in any other manner, especially if you can jump out if things go wrong.

Not only is there a counter to alpha bursts in the shield chamber, but that wouldn't be a win-all strategy anyway. If you concentrate the stealth ships on the main bulk of the enemy's force, you'll have a fleet that's relatively weak for its mass once revealed.

Can you even fire while cloaked? If so that needs to be changed.

 

[Non]

Not only is there a counter to alpha bursts in the shield chamber, but that wouldn't be a win-all strategy anyway

I assure you its 100% viable given how the power system endorses alpha. If you want an explanation, go to one of the half-a-dozen threads I've explained it in.

 

[Ithirahad]

Can you even fire while cloaked? If so that needs to be changed.

You can, it's not intended, and I reported it today along with several other chamber-related issues.

 

[Zoolimar]

That makes sense, but why do you want it that way? We won't be able to build black ops battleships at all.

You would if it was intended from the beginning.
_______

Mass, current energy production and current active shields - penalty to stealth
Distance to the scanner and mass of stealth modules - bonus to stealth

A big ship could activate small reactor, deactivate shields and get pretty close (but never as close as a small ship). It would be slow and vulnerable if it suddenly gets successfully scanned while its main reactor and shields go up.

For scanner you have:

Current energy production, current active shields - penalty to scanning
Mass of scanner modules - bonus to scanning (you also should be able to specialise in scanning power, radius and reload separately)

Scanners too benefit from being vulnerable, but mass of the ship is not a penalty, so scanners always win at close range. On the other hand if you want to reveal properly build stealth ships in other sectors you must specialise, build oversized scanner array and use smaller reactor.

________

There are many more things you could do if you add both active and passive scanning. But it seems game is not supposed to have such complex systems.

For how a simplified system like this works you could check Mechwarrior. Where you could make ambushes by shutting down your reactor, have active radar and some additional features like probes and so on.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

So... I'm disappointed. Very disappointed.
The promise was, that under the new power system, a ship of the same size will still be able to properly function.
My testing determined that was a lie. In no way can I create a reactor system in the same exact hull, that can power the same exact weapons, and have chambers to replicate the same level of defense/reconaissance/stealth that the old one can produce without breaking in sweat.
The distance required between the reactor and the stabilisers is ludicrous. It is impossible in anything but a needleship, to have proper power generation to feed all systems necessary for that mass range, or to feed the same amount of weapons/shields/thrust as an OldPower ship has. On servers that will use both systems upon release, Power 2.0 refits of the same vessel will be in tremendous disadvantage, since they will be severely outgunned, unless, as mentioned you built needle/dumbbell ships.
As for creative freedom and design choice, which were supposedly major reasons behind the power rework, there are now 3 options for an efficient design: horizontal needle, vertical needle, or conventional needle.

One more result is that people will not need scanners at all to know where to shoot to hit the reactor, as the only viable option to place the reactor is one end on the longest dimension of the vessel, while you have to place the stabilisers on the opposite end. Nothing else gives off even remotely enough power to work with, so anything else handicaps the ship severely.

 

[Valiant70]

So... I'm disappointed. Very disappointed.
The promise was, that under the new power system, a ship of the same size will still be able to properly function.
My testing determined that was a lie. In no way can I create a reactor system in the same exact hull, that can power the same exact weapons, and have chambers to replicate the same level of defense/reconaissance/stealth that the old one can produce without breaking in sweat.
The distance required between the reactor and the stabilisers is ludicrous. It is impossible in anything but a needleship, to have proper power generation to feed all systems necessary for that mass range, or to feed the same amount of weapons/shields/thrust as an OldPower ship has. On servers that will use both systems upon release, Power 2.0 refits of the same vessel will be in tremendous disadvantage, since they will be severely outgunned, unless, as mentioned you built needle/dumbbell ships.
As your creative freedom and design choice, which were supposedly major reasons behind the power rework, there are now 3 options for an efficient design.Horizontal needle, vertical needle, or conventional needle.

Stabilizers need to be completely redone. Trying to balance old and new power against each other is ridiculous, and I think it would be stupid for anyone to enable both at once on their server if PVP is allowed in any capacity.

 

[Non]

Reactor health is a bad idea too, ships already die too easily, requiring me to kill even less blocks just makes the problem worse.

 

[Valiant70]

Reactor health is a bad idea too, ships already die too easily, requiring me to kill even less blocks just makes the problem worse.

Quite honestly, I have no idea how this is going to play out until I see the plans for the weapon update.

 

[Non]

Quite honestly, I have no idea how this is going to play out until I see the plans for the weapon update.

Three possibilities:
1.Missiles target reactors, in which case reactors get obliterated super fast and reactor hp is a shit system.
2.Missiles don't target reactors but AI turrets and such do, in which case beams annihilate them almost as fast as missiles would, but missiles become super weak, and reactor hp system is shit.
3.Neither missiles or AI target reactors, in which case combat either moves to super close range (<3km) where people can effectively target reactors manually or combat becomes a matter of taking out as many blocks as possible hoping to hit a reactor, and missiles are still king, and reactor hp system is probably shit.

It's just too few blocks to effectively base a ships survivability on.