Reactor Core

[JNC]

Similar to the shield computer suggestion, except this block acts as a focal point for reactors.

It's a controlling block for power generation. If the reactor core is destroyed than the reactors linked to it will no longer produce power. This would also allow players to turn on/off power generation, hopefully through logic as well. Not sure if this should be a computer console type block or some sort of centrally located block that you build the reactor grid around.

 

[Keptick]

You can already do something very similar (identical actually) to what you're suggesting with the use of docked reactors. Here's an example:

This room contains 20 docked reactors (10 on each wall). They can all be individually turned on/off and can be destroyed independently from the ship. If they get destroyed then the ship is screwed (ok, not the particular ship that reactor room is in, but ships that rely almost entirely on docked reactors for power would). It's also better than your suggestion in a way, as I doubt that a single block being destroyed completely shutting down a a ship's power would be good for gameplay.

 

[Snk]

You can already do something very similar (identical actually) to what you're suggesting with the use of docked reactors. Here's an example:

This room contains 20 docked reactors (10 on each wall). They can all be individually turned on/off and can be destroyed independently from the ship. If they get destroyed then the ship is screwed (ok, not the particular ship that reactor room is in, but ships that rely almost entirely on docked reactors for power would).

Pretty much what you suggested.

Keptick, that's great and all, but I still think the suggestion has some merit.

 

[Keptick]

Keptick, that's great and all, but I still think the suggestion has some merit.

Yea sorry, I was in the process of editing when you replied. Basically, having a single block destroyed completely shutting down power seems both bad for gameplay and even the realism aspect to me.

I really don't see the point in shutting down a ship's power (since it's infinite), and it would really just add a MASSIVE new vulnerability ships. Look at the core mechanic (1 block destroyed and the ship is gone mechanic), not working out so well ain't it?

Now, I'm guessing that it'd have to be linked like weapons. That'd be an unnecessary pain to be honest.

All in all, I disagree with the suggestion. Not calling it stupid or anything, I just don't personally think that it'd bring anything worthwhile to the game.

 

[JNC]

Quite an innovative docking setup you have there Keptick :D I agree that linking a bunch of reactors to a controlling block would be a pain, and there isnt currently a reason to turn off reactors... I was just hoping for more control over ship systems and thought it might add some RP value. Also, a reactor is usually quite a fragile thing, having half of it blow away in combat would probably be much more devastating than just losing 50% power regen, so i think certain aspects of our ships should be more vulnerable. :P

 

[jayman38]

I agree with the OP. I think all systems should have a central computer block (with the game allowing multiple system groups with multiple controlling blocks), with the ultimate goal of being able to target subsystems and destroy them.

To reiterate, we need to be able to put multiple system control blocks so that we can have multiple redundant systems. (E.g. 5 different power generator groups, 14 different shield generator groups, 20 different shield capacitor groups, 7 different thruster groups, etc.)

 

[Proxy_PlayerHD]

the energy of your entire ship controlled by ONE block? why not giving it a function radius (50 blocks around it), high HP and armor? or make a multiblock structure with the core. wait... power reactors don't need something to produce energy, why would i want to turn them on or off? you would need an endless energy source... like batteries or fuel generators, and some kind of thruster physics (when you throw a stone in space, it will fly with constant speed until something hit it). that would not only make energy-management important, but would also give energy more worth.
p.s.: can you control how much energy you want in your batteries, or how much you want to share with a station/ship

 

[whooplaah]

I like this suggestion because it provides an opportunity for future game development.

Right now, adding this would be pointless as the other posters mentioned - it provides a massive vulnerability but no benefit.

However, in conjunction with other features it could be quite cool.

I can think of a few movies (Star Wars, Firefly, The Matrix) where a ship 'goes dark' to avoid scanners. A cloak allows a ship to move and shoot without being detected, but turning off power allows a ship to go undetected without needing a cloak system.

Having to conserve power this way would be necessary if a fuel system is ever introduced.

I don't think the computer should kill power production when destroyed, but probably cut production/capacity by 75-90%. This way ships don't get stranded if the computer pops, they will just be severely crippled.

If I can link a power computer to different components to turn them on/off or effectively overclock them (like the effect module), then I don't need as many power modules. I can decide to unlink from my missiles to add power to my thrusters, or take power from my shields to power my missiles. This would require some other features as well, but would make it so that a well-designed small ship could take down a poorly designed big ship. To quote the great Spock, "Mr. Sulu, divert every remaining power to stabilizers."

When astronaut mode is expanded I'm sure that sneaking aboard an enemy ship during combat will become a gameplay feature (it would help balance fighters against freighters). One way for an astronaut to cripple a ship from the inside is to damage/hack a shield/power computer.