I can't even tell you how many lists we've made with regards to where the game is going. We haven't lost sight. It's a matter of process. If we need to introduce decent AI factions into the game with their own assets, then we need to ensure that most of the building mechanics are finished. Before we can work on a proper universe, we need some AI framework in place for how they operate. Before we can get a true PvE experience, we need to ensure the AI is worth engaging. It's a list of dependencies.
Really? You claim I haven't read your posts, but it's clear you need a refresher on the power proposal that came out months ago.
The goal was to create a system that prevented players from filling their ship to the absolute brim with reactors and systems, because frankly that's bad engineering. I never found it exciting. The players that excelled often delved into a bit of math as well, which should not be necessary to judge the effectiveness of your gameplay experience. I remember players telling me to aim for a very specific number on my last damage penetration for weapon systems so that not an ounce of my cannons was being wasted by damaging a block instead of outright destroying it.
Furthermore, we had an issue where small vessels had a more respectable surface area vs internal volume ratio. Larger ships did not, as the surface area increased, but not nearly as quickly as internal volume. Players packed ships full of systems. It got to the point where it wasn't engineering at all. It was spamming a block, either to place down or to remove it so that you got the values you wanted. Power lines didn't matter past a certain point because of the cap on power.
For a while smaller ships were more effective, but that doesn't mean it was any fun to design a larger vessel if you wanted to do it.
Regardless, that is why we used stabilizers. The engineering aspect came from chambers. If stabilizers is the wrong way to do it, then perhaps we can fix it with crew quarters instead. Removing them basically goes back on our efforts to combat those problems with large-scale building. I'd rather fix them than remove them entirely and have wasted a lot of time.
I see where you're coming from. This actually cleared up some things for me. I do not know what your build process is, but during the time I spent playing Starmade on a dozen different servers, including 3 build servers, and in 3 larger factions, I want to share my experience about the build processes the community generally uses, so you and the Schine team are clear with that, and that may give you a better insight at how the current method hurts. The thing is - many players use 1 of the 3 following building methods:
1.
Build the hull first, with estimations of how the internal volume will be to match your desired end mass. Build an interior, as detailed as you want it to be. Build the power grid, to the best efficiency for the internal volume. Fill the rest with systems and fine tune them to be the most efficient for the end mass. (PvE, aesthetic builders mostly, and myself)
2.
Build the interior rooms first. Build systems around it, until you match the stats you desired, and have a rough shape of what you want it to look. Build a hull around it, add detailing to exterior and interior to your liking. (PvP builders mostly)
3.
Don't give a **** about looks and build only systems, in the shape currently most efficient (or a brick) to match the stats you want with the least amount of blocks used. Interior only consists of a control room and access to it. Leave as is, to spare mass, or cover it with one or more layers of standards/advanced armor (PvP min/maxers and meta builders).
In each case, by the time we start adding systems, we already had either a full interior or a roughly shaped interior in place, and the old system allowed us to wrap the system blocks around the rooms without messing up the aesthetics of the hull or the insides. Hell, my old faction had the tasks divided, we had great cosmetic builders who produced the hulls, and then some who were better with system distribution and fine tuning, who then installed them in the already built hull.
I HUMBLY ASK THE COMMUNITY TO DESCRIBE WHICH BUILD PROCESS THEY USE, TO PROVIDE INSIGHT.
Anyway, the current power system requires players to place the reactor system before anything else. That's the only way to do it, since you absolutely have to save the space for it and the stabilisers and chambers, since they all require a very specific placement and amount of blocks. Then you have to shape your interior around these already placed systems not to ruin their efficiency, while avoiding giant red beams across your rooms and corridors between the reactors ands stabs. There goes creative freedom. While we used to be able to adapt the systems to our hull and interior, now we have to adapt the hull and interior to our systems. That's the biggest problem with the new update, and that's why we've been begging for a review.
Because this hurts both #1 and #2 building style. And you know which one it does NOT hurt at all? #3. The minmaxers who never gave a damn about how their ships looked inside or outside, only about the math. They will adapt the fastest, because they won't have issues to work around to still be able to produce aesthetically pleasing yet sufficiently performing vessels.
