As a temporary solution, you could make all deco blocks add armor HP instead of structure HP. Even then, we're back to pressuring RP builds into armor tanking, and into tanking in general. Ideally, decorated builds should be able to be armor tank, shield tank, balanced, or glass cannon equally well. I'm not sure how close the game can get to that ideal, but I'm hoping to at least get closer than it's been in the past.
Hrm. One solution is to make everyone decoration block have a secondary purpose of some sort in addition to being decoration blocks. This would be similar to how the medical bay is basically decoration but also heals astronauts (thought it's usefulness is moot considering boarding isn't a thing despite attempts by the devs to make it a thing). I agree that making decorative blocks have no mass makes no sense, though I would also wanna point out that they still take up space just by being a block. Really, my response to this is: I don't think giving them an armor value would contribute to armor stuffing as you called it. RP builders will use deco blocks for deco regardless of whether or not they give armor. Armor will probably still be used for armor regardless of whether deco blocks contribute to AHP. All that happens when you give deco blocks armor is that they don't just become dead weight.
I personally would prefer for every deco block to have a purpose. It may not be the ideal solution, but I don't think there is an ideal solution. In addition to that, some deco blocks might just never have a purpose. Grates might be the hardest, but they could be given a decent purpose as "window supports" just by giving them the same stats as advanced armor. I for one would prefer every deco block to have a purpose. From fans being required to shift oxygen around the ship, to tubes needing to move blocks around. Yeah, I understand that this might just be another form of system stuffing. But really, if deco blocks performed minor functions that you didn't need oodles of they would have purpose for ships while still contributing to "roleplayeriness". Maybe you could argue "but pet, this forces roleplayeriness on everyone." to which I respond that if anything it contributes to the immersion of the game. Immersion being a thing that the game severly lacks and the devs have been painfully slow on. (Despite promising years ago that NPCs would have a purpose, AI would be good, and the universe would be fun.)
As a side note that isn't as related to the above argument. I understand both sides as to why we should have fuel VS why we shouldn't have fuel. In a sense that argument also extends to such concepts as food, oxygen, item transport pipes, animals, and trade. To all of which, including fuel, I argue that as long as the systems are reasonable they only benefit the game. They benefit the game through immersion. Which, if this game is going to be what it seems to want to be (an accessible sandbox style space-sim.) are necessary.
As stated by others, all this does is promote making a ship as long as possible in one dimension. Stabilizers will have to be reworked so they serve their intended purpose, or else removed. If they're removed, system stuffing will come back at least to some degree.
Note: I tried to quote both Valiant and Schema but couldn't
I understand that stabilizers are necessary at this point in time so that RP players aren't shafted. However, I think that a better solution than stabilizers would be to give interiors actual use rather than encouraging them through arbitrary means. This goes along with concepts related to oxygen and food systems. Additionally, interiors would be useful if things like animals could only be transported by physically being on and in your ship as opposed to just shoving them in a crate in meat or some other form. (Though that argument is somewhat moot seeing as no animals are in the game as of yet.)
Now, to be fair, this wouldn't stop PVP players from going as weight efficient as they possibly can and still outclassing RP ships, however it might be a slightly more amenable solution than stabilizers.
Really, I think that the solution required might , in conjunction to those above, something that makes more sense regarding stabilizers, and less removal of the block and initial concept.
I do think that limits on ship size are implemented through the use of diminishing returns on weapon arrays, and how much it costs to run them. However, I think that a slightly better way to achieve the goal you quote schema as having above would be to have power taper off in the reactors as well. At least, if the goal is actually to limit ship size.
In actuality, schema's goal was to encourage empty space and make RP builds not suck, which I believe schema has stated in part in the past, and everyone knows.
However, even with that goal in mind, the current stabilizer system is... less than ideal. And I say that considering that I actually like stabilizers. And although I do think that the idea that stabilizers will lead to the massive spaghettification of ships is somewhat exaggerated, I do not disagree that it is at least somewhat a problem.
One way to better accomplish both of Schema's goals (The one quoted in your post, and the one related to empty space.) might be to make the calculation of number of stabilizers dependent on some relationship between reactor size, ship blocks, and ship interior space. However, this would really just result in a massively laggy and obtuse calculation.
Additionally, I would like to point to the original reactor concept - the one to which the community thoroughly bitched a fit - of having stabilizers themselves have a bubble detection of, and effect on, system blocks, the reactor, and/or armor. This would probably still be a preferred solution. It would avoid the spaghettification problem, while allowing for more freedom in placing stabilizers, while tying ship size to reactor size, while also not making empty space useless.
However, if there is one thing I've learned about this community, it's that it will literally never be satisfied.
