Remove Stabilizers

    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    353
    Reaction score
    162
    On this one though, both sides have a problem. If stabilizers are removed reactors will have nothing limiting them, you could fill every empty space with reactor blocks.
    What's the point? They weight 0.4 per block. Or 1.6 times of Advanced Armor.

    Integrity, after a balance pass, would stop them from going spaghetti. So reactor would be more or less a single blob and probably tucked somewhere deep in the ship.

    Trying to cram every nook and cranny with them will make reactor volatile and tank the speed of the ship hard.
     
    Joined
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages
    317
    Reaction score
    244
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    What's the point? They weight 0.4 per block. Or 1.6 times of Advanced Armor.

    Integrity, after a balance pass, would stop them from going spaghetti. So reactor would be more or less a single blob and probably tucked somewhere deep in the ship.

    Trying to cram every nook and cranny with them will make reactor volatile and tank the speed of the ship hard.
    I suppose, I didn't remember that they weighed so much.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages
    321
    Reaction score
    257
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    Is it just reactors or stabilizers as well that have the greater mass? Upping stabilizer mass a bit more along with eliminating the distance sounds pretty doable.
     
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    353
    Reaction score
    162
    Is it just reactors or stabilizers as well that have the greater mass? Upping stabilizer mass a bit more along with eliminating the distance sounds pretty doable.
    Both. And I think chambers too.
     
    Joined
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages
    317
    Reaction score
    244
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    I realize that even without stabilizers reactor size will be limited by chambers, as chambers have to be half the size of the reactor to work. So I have changed my mined and am fully in the remove stabilizers camp.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic and Kelpaz

    Jarraff

    filthy neutral
    Joined
    Aug 28, 2015
    Messages
    111
    Reaction score
    61
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Reactors have the 0.4 mass, chambers and stabilizers are 0.2 mass.

    Could increasing the mass of the reactors and removing stabilizers work?
     

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Reactors have the 0.4 mass, chambers and stabilizers are 0.2 mass.

    Could increasing the mass of the reactors and removing stabilizers work?
    why are they even that high mass in the first place
     
    Joined
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages
    596
    Reaction score
    112
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    wouldn't removing stabilizers just ironically bring us full circle back to basically the same thing just less blocky and more GUIy?
    dont get me wrong i agree with u all but thats just funny as hell
     

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    wouldn't removing stabilizers just ironically bring us full circle back to basically the same thing just less blocky and more GUIy?
    dont get me wrong i agree with u all but thats just funny as hell
    welcome to starmade, everything is cyclical here

    Get ready for the NEW NEW WEAPONS UPDATE, NEXT!
     
    Joined
    Mar 9, 2014
    Messages
    596
    Reaction score
    112
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    welcome to starmade, everything is cyclical here

    Get ready for the NEW NEW WEAPONS UPDATE, NEXT!
    didn't we have two of those already ? haha
    schine needs to pick a system and stay with it man, they change things just about as fast as i rename things
     

    Valiant70

    That crazy cyborg
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages
    2,189
    Reaction score
    1,168
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Here's a thought. We don't need stabilizers if we change the way SHP works so that extra hull is desirable, because that already removes the disadvantage of interiors or irregularly-shaped exteriors.

    In power 1.0, systems provided most of the SHP. If you had a large brick of systems, you had enough SHP to get by already. This means once you have a layer of armor on the outside, more hull doesn't necessarily help a whole heck of a lot. Minimizing the amount of armor needed to cover your ship and avoiding interior was a good way to keep your mass down.

    I think we should separate SHP into separate pools for the hull, the reactor, and individual systems.
    • Structure HP: Provided by hull and armor. If it's gone, the ship disintegrates.
    • Reactor HP: If it's gone, the reactor starts overheating, causing damage to structure HP over time.
    • Other system HP: Each system has an HP pool. If enough blocks of that system are destroyed, that system stops working. (e.g. engines, a weapon group, or shields.)
    One argument is that this would make ships die too fast when they take hits to their hull. Either players must start building bulkheads between systems to provide more SHP, or build interiors, or both. If it still seems like ships are destroyed too easily, then the amount of SHP provided by hull and armor blocks is too low.

    This also allows players to target and disable specific systems provided they know where to shoot, or have the scanning capability to find out.

    This could work on its own, or be implemented alongside heat mechanics such as those in this suggestion.
     
    Joined
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages
    195
    Reaction score
    84
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Here's a thought. We don't need stabilizers if we change the way SHP works so that extra hull is desirable, because that already removes the disadvantage of interiors or irregularly-shaped exteriors.

    In power 1.0, systems provided most of the SHP. If you had a large brick of systems, you had enough SHP to get by already. This means once you have a layer of armor on the outside, more hull doesn't necessarily help a whole heck of a lot. Minimizing the amount of armor needed to cover your ship and avoiding interior was a good way to keep your mass down.

    I think we should separate SHP into separate pools for the hull, the reactor, and individual systems.
    • Structure HP: Provided by hull and armor. If it's gone, the ship disintegrates.
    • Reactor HP: If it's gone, the reactor starts overheating, causing damage to structure HP over time.
    • Other system HP: Each system has an HP pool. If enough blocks of that system are destroyed, that system stops working. (e.g. engines, a weapon group, or shields.)
    One argument is that this would make ships die too fast when they take hits to their hull. Either players must start building bulkheads between systems to provide more SHP, or build interiors, or both. If it still seems like ships are destroyed too easily, then the amount of SHP provided by hull and armor blocks is too low.

    This also allows players to target and disable specific systems provided they know where to shoot, or have the scanning capability to find out.

    This could work on its own, or be implemented alongside heat mechanics such as those in this suggestion.
    If you haven't made a suggestion already you should make one. Yet another great suggestions Valiant!
     
    Joined
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages
    317
    Reaction score
    244
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    "Oh great and powerful cat God Shema, ruler and creator of our Starmade multiverse. Look kindly upon us your followers, and forgive us are many transgressions.
    We beseech you oh great Lord, spar your humble servants from the great tribulation known as the stabilizers."
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Apr 5, 2016
    Messages
    17
    Reaction score
    9
    Here's a thought. We don't need stabilizers if we change the way SHP works so that extra hull is desirable, because that already removes the disadvantage of interiors or irregularly-shaped exteriors.

    In power 1.0, systems provided most of the SHP. If you had a large brick of systems, you had enough SHP to get by already. This means once you have a layer of armor on the outside, more hull doesn't necessarily help a whole heck of a lot. Minimizing the amount of armor needed to cover your ship and avoiding interior was a good way to keep your mass down.

    I think we should separate SHP into separate pools for the hull, the reactor, and individual systems.
    • Structure HP: Provided by hull and armor. If it's gone, the ship disintegrates.
    • Reactor HP: If it's gone, the reactor starts overheating, causing damage to structure HP over time.
    • Other system HP: Each system has an HP pool. If enough blocks of that system are destroyed, that system stops working. (e.g. engines, a weapon group, or shields.)
    One argument is that this would make ships die too fast when they take hits to their hull. Either players must start building bulkheads between systems to provide more SHP, or build interiors, or both. If it still seems like ships are destroyed too easily, then the amount of SHP provided by hull and armor blocks is too low.

    This also allows players to target and disable specific systems provided they know where to shoot, or have the scanning capability to find out.

    This could work on its own, or be implemented alongside heat mechanics such as those in this suggestion.
    I like and agree with this solution!