Stabilizer Mechanic Overhaul

[YamiHikari]

In my opinion, the most excruciating part of stabilizers is how far they need to be placed from the reactors. As things are now, as soon as the reactors gain a considerable amount of size, the stabilizers need to be placed kilometers away. I thought up a change that can solve this.

For starters, we'll need to throw out the current equation that ties reactor group size to stabilizer distance. The size already has a decent enough effect on the number of stabilizers needed. The second thing I need to mention is that the number of 100% stabilization efficiency stabilizers required for 100% stabilization should be lowered so it isn't as close to a 1:1 ratio.

Now for the main event: diminishing returns from stabilizer groups of increasing size. At first glance this sounds like a terrible idea, but it will only sound better with my explanation. The basic premise is that there is a default distance that stabilizers need to be placed from the reactor group to attain maximum efficiency. This is the base distance. However, as you add more stabilizers to a group of stabilizers, their efficiency at that distance goes down. So, if you want to have larger groups of stabilizers, you will need to place them farther from the reactor group to get the same amount of efficiency. This creates a tradeoff between compactness and defensive integrity. The player will have to choose whether they want a compact ship with many weak points, an enlarged/elongated ship with only one weak point, or something in the middle. This gives rise to the opportunity for specialized tanks or combat ships because regardless of which configuration the player chooses the ship will have the same amount of power and therefore weapon/shield capacity in every situation.

Another advantage of this new system is that it would allow the reintroduction of strategic reactor placement. With current stabilizer mechanics the only place the player can place the reactor is at the extreme ends of the ship. With the option to place multiple stabilizer groups at shorter distances the reactor can now be placed elsewhere in the ship. Of course, the player will still have to remember that with larger reactors come either more stabilizer groups or larger groups that are farther away in order to satisfy the now increased stabilization requirement of the reactor group.

After giving it further thought, I discovered that this new system would also give the player more building freedom outside of simple ship size. If the player were to build a more compact ship, they would not be required to build as much interior or empty space as a player with an enlarged ship configuration. This gives the player freedom to include or not include interiors as they please while still encouraging the addition of empty space through the required spacing of individual stabilizer groups.

I haven't quite figured out the exact equations by which this would function, but I assume the diminishing efficiency will occur in the form of a logarithmic, non-tiered function (unlike the tiered function that determines stabilizer stream size) that basically has the largest drops in stabilization efficiency initially and then levels off at larger sizes.

Now, if this plan were to be implemented, another requirement would be changing stabilizer streams so they are only visible during build mode (possibly with the exception of when a reactor chamber effect is used) in order to allow freedom of placement without the worry of ruining aesthetics.

 

[NeonSturm]

The one thing I agree with is "multiple stabilizer groups".
But how to enforce it?

Do you want a heat-box around each of them?
Do they need to be placed away from other stabizers aswell?

 

[YamiHikari]

It's already enforced. If you look at how stabilizers are currently, stabilizers placed close together (whether touching or not) are bundled into a single group that gets a single stabilizer stream. Stabilizers that are placed farther apart are put in separate groups with individual streams. The mechanic that organizes stabilizers into groups is already implemented. We just need to change the efficiency determination mechanic.

 

[Valiant70]

Stabilizer Mechanics: Flux Dissipation

My idea does something similar. The larger a group, the less cooling per block.

 

[YamiHikari]

Yeah, but your idea doesn't so much take distance into account (unless I'm misunderstanding). Basically, if you have larger groups you need to place them farther away.

 

[Valiant70]

Yeah, but your idea doesn't so much take distance into account (unless I'm misunderstanding). Basically, if you have larger groups you need to place them farther away.

Why should larger groups have to be further away?

 

[YamiHikari]

Why should larger groups have to be further away?

It's something to encourage spreading out the stabilizers more. Basically, with larger reactors you would either need to place more stabilizer groups or larger stabilizer groups, either case would require some degree of outward expansion, while still leaving empty space between the groups (to prevent them from being bundled together) which can be used as interior space or something else. It also creates a more reasonable tradeoff that allows the player to place stabilizers closer to the reactor if they choose without becoming completely advantageous and broken. If you could put down a single large stabilizer group anywhere you want, you would put it the minimum distance, right? Well, that would become broken if the distance never grew, so I'm proposing that instead of tying distance to reactor size we tie it to stabilizer size, then allowing smaller stabilizer groups to be placed really close to the reactor, allowing for smaller and more compact ship builds.

ADDITION: What it does is prevent total breakage of the distance system. You need to choose between a small build with a lot of firepower and a lot of weak points or a larger build with the same power distributed to a larger ship with almost no true weak points.

 

[Valiant70]

It's something to encourage spreading out the stabilizers more. Basically, with larger reactors you would either need to place more stabilizer groups or larger stabilizer groups, either case would require some degree of outward expansion, while still leaving empty space between the groups (to prevent them from being bundled together) which can be used as interior space or something else. It also creates a more reasonable tradeoff that allows the player to place stabilizers closer to the reactor if they choose without becoming completely advantageous and broken. If you could put down a single large stabilizer group anywhere you want, you would put it the minimum distance, right? Well, that would become broken if the distance never grew, so I'm proposing that instead of tying distance to reactor size we tie it to stabilizer size, then allowing smaller stabilizer groups to be placed really close to the reactor, allowing for smaller and more compact ship builds.

My idea does the same thing indirectly - group size and proximity to other groups (and reactor) both reduce efficiency. To get the same efficiency with a large group, it has to be farther from the rest. It's just not as cut and dry.

The farther a stabilizer is from the reactor, the smaller the group, and the farther it is from other groups, the higher the efficiency of each block.

 

[YamiHikari]

My idea does the same thing indirectly - group size and proximity to other groups (and reactor) both reduce efficiency. To get the same efficiency with a large group, it has to be farther from the rest. It's just not as cut and dry.

Okay, so in that case I did misunderstand your post. I understand your idea for proximity to other groups, but I think that adds one too many variables to keep track of. You have to remember that there needs to be a lot of freedom for building. If stabilizer groups being close together reduces efficiency, then the stabilizer groups will be required to radiate out in a sort of sphere to maximize efficiency, pretty much making death balls the new META. With what I'm suggesting, we use the original stabilizer concept and say "you can place these anywhere you want, but larger stabilizer groups need to be farther away." It gives a lot of build freedom, eliminates the pencil ship META, and still accomplishes the original goal of empty space in ships (because you will need to keep stabilizers a certain distance apart to prevent them from being put together in a group at the moment).

 

[Valiant70]

Okay, so in that case I did misunderstand your post. I understand your idea for proximity to other groups, but I think that adds one too many variables to keep track of. You have to remember that there needs to be a lot of freedom for building. If stabilizer groups being close together reduces efficiency, then the stabilizer groups will be required to radiate out in a sort of sphere to maximize efficiency, pretty much making death balls the new META. With what I'm suggesting, we use the original stabilizer concept and say "you can place these anywhere you want, but larger stabilizer groups need to be farther away." It gives a lot of build freedom, eliminates the pencil ship META, and still accomplishes the original goal of empty space in ships (because you will need to keep stabilizers a certain distance apart to prevent them from being put together in a group at the moment).

Without penalties for proximity to another group, you can just divide a group in half to get more efficiency, essentially leading to a zillion one-block groups, which is far worse.

 

[YamiHikari]

Without penalties for proximity to another group, you can just divide a group in half to get more efficiency, essentially leading to a zillion one-block groups, which is far worse.

That's what you'd initially think, but that's actually an inefficient use of space. Even when divided into single blocks, stabilizers need to be a pretty notable distance apart to be considered separate groups. You would actually have better stabilization performance with several small clumps of stabilizers close to the reactor and increasingly larger groups of stabilizers as you get farther from the reactor, all of them just barely at the group's minimum distance for maximum stabilization efficiency.

If you split all of your stabilizer groups up into single-block groups, you have to remember that each group needs to be a good few meters away from other groups in order to keep them from being automatically bundled together into a single group, meaning that you will have a lot of useless empty space between the net of single stabilizers. By making these single stabilizers 4-5 stabilizer clumps, you will need to place them a little farther from the reactor, but will overall get more stabilization for the same amount of occupied area (including the empty space in between) than with the single-stabilizer groups.

In order to fully understand this, you need to think of it in terms of density. While farther out, clusters of stabilizer groups that contain more stabilizers will be able to include more stabilizers in the same general amount of space because 20 1-stabilizer groups with 10 blocks of space between each group is a lot less dense than 5 4-stabilizer groups with 10 blocks of space between each group.

In fact, by placing the 20 stabilizers in 4-block groupings, you are actually decreasing the amount of space the same number of stabilizers require because you are decreasing the number of groups while keeping the space needed between each group constant.

ADDITION: a lot of this suggestion revolves around keeping some sort of empty space in the ship but allowing for the freedom to choose how you distribute that empty space instead of being required to extend everything across a single axis. With mini clumping, you can have more stabilizers closer to the reactor, but will have to leave a lot of total empty space between them due to the grouping mechanic. With mega clumping, putting all of the stabilizers into fewer larger groups, the player will need to put the stabilizers farther from the reactor but can leave less total empty space between the stabilizers, allowing for the player to simply create a solid space occupied by the stabilizers and a few filler systems/structures in between.

 

[Zoolimar]

If you split all of your stabilizer groups up into single-block groups, you have to remember that each group needs to be a good few meters away from other groups in order to keep them from being automatically bundled together into a single group, meaning that you will have a lot of useless empty space between the net of single stabilizers. By making these single stabilizers 4-5 stabilizer clumps, you will need to place them a little farther from the reactor, but will overall get more stabilization for the same amount of occupied area (including the empty space in between) than with the single-stabilizer groups.

In order to fully understand this, you need to think of it in terms of density. While farther out, clusters of stabilizer groups that contain more stabilizers will be able to include more stabilizers in the same general amount of space because 20 1-stabilizer groups with 10 blocks of space between each group is a lot less dense than 5 4-stabilizer groups with 10 blocks of space between each group.

So where is the downside to the single block stabilizers in there ?

Empty space doesn't penalize the ship on its characteristics. Only on looks. If single block stabilizers give the same or even better stabilization than multi-block groups than they are more effective, even if they take a little more space (or even if a lot more, as long as we are not scraping the sector boundary with ship size). Because you can't effectively target stabilizers made in single block groups.

 

[YamiHikari]

So where is the downside to the single block stabilizers in there ?

Empty space doesn't penalize the ship on its characteristics. Only on looks. If single block stabilizers give the same or even better stabilization than multi-block groups than they are more effective, even if they take a little more space (or even if a lot more, as long as we are not scraping the sector boundary with ship size). Because you can't effectively target stabilizers made in single block groups.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, because they don't give better stabilization. They end up taking a ton more space. If you have a large reactor and you need a lot of stabilizers to stabilize it, using only 1-block groups will take up a huge amount of space. The other problem is that if a missile were to fly in and hit any part of the area occupied by the stabilizers and their streams, your ship is effectively dead due to the penalty. Single-block groups are only useful when a) very few stabilizers are needed or b) for the first few meters of viable space away from the reactor because when you get farther from the reactor it will actually be advantageous to make your stabilizer groups bigger because they will then have the same efficiency at those larger distances, allowing the player to take up much less overall space. I recognize that single-block groups are useful, but only using single-block groups is incredibly disadvantageous.
[doublepost=1515850258,1515849967][/doublepost]The real tradeoff here is this: by only using single-block groups, you are pretty much shooting yourself in the foot. The original choice is between a small ship with X amount of power and a lot of weak points or a ship that's 10 times larger with much fewer weak points and the same X amount of power. What you are suggesting is going with the larger ship and then multiplying the weak points by 10 instead of reducing them. You will have much less overall power if you expand your ship in such a way.

 

[Valiant70]

Why should nearby groups combine? That just reduces the flexibility of the system. With my concept, two stabilizer groups can be right next to each other, only they should only get the same efficiency as one big one. I may need to clarify that more in my other post.

 

[YamiHikari]

Why should nearby groups combine? That just reduces the flexibility of the system. With my concept, two stabilizer groups can be right next to each other, only they should only get the same efficiency as one big one. I may need to clarify that more in my other post.

For that you would need to ask the developers. They are the ones who implemented that feature when they created stabilizer streams. Basically, I see it as a way to prevent the unnecessary breaking up of stabilizer groups to thin out streams and minimize the effects of a hit from a weapon. In short, it prevents META exploits. The stabilizer streams will most likely not go away. In order to prevent stream exploits, the bundling of stabilizers in close proximity is necessary and cannot be removed. This new mechanic would use that feature to its advantage.

I admit it reduces flexibility a little, but it must be sacrificed to prevent exploits, and the minor sacrifice should not affect builds too drastically. Considering that nobody has complained about it after several weeks, it has not significantly impeded anybody's building styles.

ADDITION: When you think about it, the proximity bundling only really affects the immediate vicinity around the reactor, because that is where the player will probably try to pack many small groups closer together. When you factor in the inclusion of an interior in the ship, the player can fill in empty useless space with stabilizer clumps in order to not waste space and use the interiors themselves to mediate the gaps between them. You would also find less restrictions farther out as you would be able to create larger groups at the same efficiency and therefore not need to divide and space them out as much. You are probably still thinking of this suggestion only in terms of 1- or 2-block groups and forgetting the hierarchical scaling of efficiency and size. Think of it as being similar to your idea for decreased efficiency with proximity to other stabilizer groups. Although, in my case, I chose to keep the current system of proximity bundling instead of a simple punishment. In reality, it would work much more effectively because you would still find the decrease in efficiency with proximity but find implementation and maintenance code-wise to be much simpler (using a simple threshold distance as opposed to an equation).

 

[Valiant70]

Considering that nobody has complained about it after several weeks, it has not significantly impeded anybody's building styles.

Where have you been the last few weeks??? Clearly not on Starmade Dock.

 

[YamiHikari]

Where have you been the last few weeks??? Clearly not on Starmade Dock.

I have been on smd. The only complaints I've seen so far are about a) stabilizer distance and the specific build style it favors, b) stabilizer streams and how ugly/useless/annoying they are, and c) the power system itself and its lack of usefulness. I haven't read every post and comment but this is what I've seen so far. If you know where I can find complaints about the added proximity bundling, please post a link and I will promptly correct myself.

But let's get back on track. Do you have any other questions or complaints about my proposal? I'd like to clarify everything I can so everyone understands my suggestion. You might see something I didn't, and by fixing it I may be able to improve my suggestion.