Recognized Simple solution for a horrible problem

[Oronoscus]

which

Making the undocked thing have no collision

 

[HolyCookie]

Why not make it so that an entity that has its rail connection disconnected from main ship becomes non functional (similar to overheating ship) that weapons don't work, no power generates or shields generates etc. However if manually removed from the ship they work normally (by undocking from core).

because some people, like me, put power generation on the turrets so that if they get shot off, but survive mostly, they can still shoot at the enemy. That's why making them non-functional isn't the best idea.

For everyone that feels like this is useless, I as pvper am very very aware of the fact that reactors undocking means it's time to get some drinks. I Know there is a simple solution out there that fixes the problem without deleting reactors. If we find it, I will make sure it will be noticed.

 

[kookster]

because some people, like me, put power generation on the turrets so that if they get shot off, but survive mostly, they can still shoot at the enemy. That's why making them non-functional isn't the best idea.

For everyone that feels like this is useless, I as pvper am very very aware of the fact that reactors undocking means it's time to get some drinks. I Know there is a simple solution out there that fixes the problem without deleting reactors. If we find it, I will make sure it will be noticed.

Get rid of the need of docked reactors. Which would be to change how power works. I once proposed that we raise the default power generation of a single reactor from 25 to something higher, and then reduce the structural design bonus. This way when you get to be a larger ship you dont need nearly as many reactors and thus removes your desire to have docked reactors. Thoughts?

 

[godmars]

a docked entity undocks when it overheats (then again.... i am guessing this part)

It doesn't. It sticks around until its timer hits 0 then vanishes

Only rails will be included, not the turret axis or rotator.

Don't really get why rail rotators would be omitted. You'd just be able to use logic to get around it anyway.

 

[HolyCookie]

Get rid of the need of docked reactors. Which would be to change how power works. I once proposed that we raise the default power generation of a single reactor from 25 to something higher, and then reduce the structural design bonus. This way when you get to be a larger ship you dont need nearly as many reactors and thus removes your desire to have docked reactors. Thoughts?

Well, though this is a solution, I don't really support it. You see, I am a big fan of giving people that do more work a little bonus. Putting reactor blocks in a pattern, making generators. It's like advanced technology, people found a way to get more efficient power than others (this is a thing I also miss for logic, besides the little jumpdrive overclock incident, they are almost useless for combat related stuff). By just removing generators this will happen: 50% of the PvP'ers are mad because they needed that advantage and have to refit. 50% is kinda happy because there is less lag in battles. Now I rather go for 100% or anything more than half the people. That's why we are brainstorming this, to find a mix that many people agree with.

It doesn't. It sticks around until its timer hits 0 then vanishes


Don't really get why rail rotators would be omitted. You'd just be able to use logic to get around it anyway.

I am 100% sure they undock when the rail block is destroyed. They float around yea. Generators are more likely to be shot from their rail than to overheat, my mistake.

I'm trying to also come up with something, but all I can think of is this:
Using the in-game ship config you can select the ship type and choose generator.
When a ship has the generator tag, it will be given special abilities. something like:
Will be destroyed when force undocked (weapons) but not when undocked by logic or player. the reactor would leave a pile of dropped items according to the block the ship consisted of.
or like previously suggested, it will have no collision for some time.

anyways suggestions so far:

1. delete generators
2. no collision generators for a few seconds
3. let the generators float but not function
4. working redundant docking points

 

[Crashmaster]

you forgot:

4. working redundant docking points

 

[lupoCani]

I'm not inclined to support a solution that ultimately buffs docked reactors, even if it's pretty marginal. And really, this issue is a technical one, the solution shouldn't infringe on the game mechanics themselves. Making them clip until they're clear of the mothership seems like a more elegant solution, possibly also re-activating their momentum dampeners before sending them flying at max speed.

 

[NTIMESc]

One problem with no collisions for a few seconds is that it could add to the problem. I can imagine a turret being blown off, and floating away from the ship, and INTO another ship(or asteroid/planet/etc). Then collisions come back on and it's the same problem.

Perhaps the docked entity could just teleport to the nearest empty space when it's dock is destroyed.

 

[RODLON]

If the undocked entity is kept "docked" I think it should only happen if it's causing lag, for example if it produces X collisions whitin a second.

 

[Oronoscus]

If the undocked entity is kept "docked" I think it should only happen if it's causing lag, for example if it produces X collisions whitin a second.

The reason it causes lag in the first place is collision detection, what you proposed would still cause the same amount of lag. This is not a viable solution

 

[RODLON]

The reason it causes lag in the first place is collision detection, what you proposed would still cause the same amount of lag. This is not a viable solution

What if changing the "if produces X collisions within a second" for "if produces X collision checks within a second"? If X is avobe a threshold then re-dock the entity where it was.

 

[Dire Venom]

What about disabling clipping on an object for (x) seconds after being undocked:? Might be a bit weird to see reactors floating through your ship but its better than nothing.

 

[Oronoscus]

What if changing the "if produces X collisions within a second" for "if produces X collision checks within a second"? If X is avobe a threshold then re-dock the entity where it was.

Yea but the collisions lag the server slowing down the whole process, that's basically how the system works now but instead it moves the ship.
[DOUBLEPOST=1456434074,1456434032][/DOUBLEPOST]

What about disabling clipping on an object for (x) seconds after being undocked:? Might be a bit weird to see reactors floating through your ship but its better than nothing.

How about my original suggestion! That would work best.

 

[NTIMESc]

I know! We should delete the reactors when they become undocked! Or, we could disable collision checks on them for a few seconds! Or, what about having them stayed docked, but not function! Also, having multiple redundant docking points might be a solution! Personally, I think teleporting the entity to a nearby free space would be the best!


Nevermind...

 

[Dire Venom]

How about my original suggestion! That would work best.

I agree whith your orgional post, hower it would need to be developed further and need some further discussion.
I was just trying to fully explore the topic, and its your opinion, not a scientific fact that your idea would work best.
While it is a great idea maybe tone the ego down a bit please

Just some further development on your idea:
-Under what conditions will the entity remain docked? If I remove the rail block in build mode will it remain docked? What if I want to undock it?
-What if I want it to break off when the block is destroyed?
-How would this effect carriers?

 

[Lukwan]

How about my original suggestion! That would work best.

I agree with Oromoscus. His ego must be so huge it is affecting me too.
I read the other posts and the OP seems like quite viable.
-Continue to let turrets be targeted.
-Allow the docked reactors etc to be 'disabled' but retain their position as dead weight.

To give the player control over how the docker will respond to destruction (as well as SOPs) I suggest:
Make an interface like the faction module to change docker settings. This would be an opportunity to tell a docked entity to ignore global commands from the Flight menu. After all, if you have a carrier you may not want to eject all your turrets when you launch your fighters.

 

[HolyCookie]

I agree with Oromoscus. His ego must be so huge it is affecting me too.
I read the other posts and the OP seems like quite viable.
-Continue to let turrets be targeted.
-Allow the docked reactors etc to be 'disabled' but retain their position as dead weight.

To give the player control over how the docker will respond to destruction (as well as SOPs) I suggest:
Make an interface like the faction module to change docker settings. This would be an opportunity to tell a docked entity to ignore global commands from the Flight menu. After all, if you have a carrier you may not want to eject all your turrets when you launch your fighters.

Turret's can fall off, they don't cause much/any lag.

I do agree, the must be a way to say: "Hey! I am a reactor"
But not using the faction block, that can get blown off by explosions.

Ok, there has been enough talking and I think most of us agree, only reactors and reactors only should stay on there as dead weight. All we need to do is finalize this fix the indication problem and check for ways to exploit. After that I'll make a summary to present this for the dev team.

Keep up the conversation, quote or tag me to get my attention faster!

 

[Criss]

I think the underlining issue here is that power systems greatly favor smaller more efficient designs. It is more likely that we will redesigns how power systems work than put in place this sort of fix. How does the game distinguish a docked entity as a power reactor source? At what point do docked entities no longer fall off and drift into space? Plenty of other systems operate fairly well without the need to supply docked versions of themselves. I don't see why that should be the meta of PVP just so you can stand a chance. It's a bit unfair to an uninformed player and to everyone's pc's when the collisions hit.

 

[derbin]

I think the underlining issue here is that power systems greatly favor smaller more efficient designs. It is more likely that we will redesigns how power systems work than put in place this sort of fix. How does the game distinguish a docked entity as a power reactor source? At what point do docked entities no longer fall off and drift into space? Plenty of other systems operate fairly well without the need to supply docked versions of themselves. I don't see why that should be the meta of PVP just so you can stand a chance. It's a bit unfair to an uninformed player and to everyone's pc's when the collisions hit.

The fix doesn't need to distinguish a docked power source nor does stuff float in space after the rail docker is destroyed. Such an easy fix while other things get worked. The community agrees with suggestion and your throwing it away.

 

[Awdred]

This is actually a good idea.