StarMade Ship Systems 2.0

[Treefolk]

Neat! I'm looking forward to playing with this. Is there any news as to when we can expect to see the first version of this? (If I missed it in the post, please show me!)

 

[Philiquaz]

physical connections? sign me up.
As Valiant was saying about possibly letting you connect up individual systems- again a possibility of more connection-games is appealing to at least some of us.

Definitely an improvement over the last proposal; but also somewhat not sold on "tech points"; the theory is sound: you can effectively give orders to the systems to change their behaviour based on need... what we're getting at is "power directives", but coming up with a phrase to represent some objectified form of instructions is... difficult. Maybe you're opening up "power channels" (ie power channel per point), would work for naming?
Tbh a minor issue compared to the gameplay lol.

There is some concern regarding multiple reactors: having only 1 active would be... not ideal for some people, I guess?
I guess the real problem there is that there is no concept of "breakdown and maintenance" in starmade; and is only nearly reached when in severe combat. Until that point; carrying around spare reactors is a massive waste; players are more likely to keep the one and spend time defending it properly; Unless of course some other cause for reactor failure is found (be careful though that this issue of failure might not have an ultimate solution in just 2 reactors, perhaps in the event that a reactors fails, it has a chance to propagate to further reactors: thus more reactors would be more reliable: But in addition would imply smaller less efficient reactors, or require more distance/spacing to the stabilisers as a means to balance)

Whichever way, I think this system can work; and will just be a case of tweaking.

 

[AtraUnam]

Thoughts while reading post (in order):

• This is retarded
• This could actually work
• This has some cool features
• This has some clear issues that will presumably be fixed in testing
• I think I like this but I suspect it to be strongly explotable in some unforseen way.

 

[therimmer96]

I like it, but Schine made it, so I hate it until someone tells me otherwise.

 

[El_Poulpy]

That is a much better proposition that the last one, i think it can work.

To prevent a player from filling his structure with as many Reactor and Stabilizer blocks as possible

I don't get why you want to prevent that. Can you explain this ?

Tech point ? no, call it dedicated cpu or something else and uses crew members assigned to a chamber as an other sources of theses points (or reduce the consumption of the chamber managed) and its good for me

 

[7000jb]

How about a heat system where block that do something make heat. Heat spreads thought the ship naturally. Blocks lose heat naturally and if they over heat they take damage. Some block move heat better than other also two new blocks heat tubes and heat shields. Heat shields block heat where heat tube spread it better the other blocks. This mean small ships are unaffected where large ships need to worry about there thermals. This is good for new player as it dose not affected them straight away.

please ignore my bad spelling and feel free to change or point out errors in my idea.

 

[therimmer96]

That is a much better proposition that the last one, i think it can work.
I don't get why you want to prevent that. Can you explain this ?

Tech point ? no, call it dedicated cpu or something else and uses crew members assigned to a chamber as an other sources of theses points (or reduce the consumption of the chamber managed) and its good for me

They want interiors and boarding to be a thing. Hence the future crew system. The majority of the community is strongly against doomcubes, and thinks mean things towards doomcubes with fancy hulls (ships just stuffed with blocks and the bare minimum interior)


I have a proper question schine.

How does this play into the crew system? It's been said that one benefit of crew will be that more experienced crew members will provide some sort of buffing to ships, but that's now built into this system. What you gonna do regarding this? Will both chambers and crew buff?

 

[Zerefette]

It's the end times for chaindrives, THE END TIMES!

 

[TheOmega]

There should be some way of having multiple reactors, like one per two orders of magnitude of the mass of all systems minus reactors, so a ship with 0-99 mass would have 1 reactor, 100-9999 would have 2, etc.
Just some way, just in case.

 

[ohartenstein23]

What this might mean for customizing weapons concerns me a bit; the passive/tertiary effect blocks made is easy to customize each weapon individually, but the chamber system to me sounds like shipwide effects on all weapons of the same type (e.g. all your cannons would have explosive effect), and you have to go through reconnecting chambers to change this, or we end up with chambers being attached to the weapon, in which case we end up with something similar to the current system, something that is called troublesome here. Are the weapon systems planned out enough that we could get a clarification?

 

[Criss]

the passive/tertiary effect blocks made is easy to customize each weapon individually, but the chamber system to me sounds like shipwide effects on all weapons of the same type

Not sure if it was in the post, I know it wasn't in the video. As far as offensive effects, those will stay. Your weapons can remain unique from gun to gun. Defensive effects will overlap with the chamber tree system, so it's best if they are just incorporated.

 

[ohartenstein23]

Okay, thanks for the quick reply!

 

[Haalon]

So, since all weapons will have inner power storage enough to fire it once, what will prevent players from building One-Strike Ships - ships with huge alpha strike weapons that uses that inner charge to fire them once and easily annihilate any ship of your size or even bigger.

Especially since you only need to destroy the reactor of your enemy.

 

[materia]

When will you be releasing numbers to attach to the ideas? Reactor size = Stabilizer size is simple enough... but... for example;

total reactor blocks will be used to calculate distance; a reactor of 20 blocks must be 20m from the stab? so 200 block reactors must be 200m from the stab?

is it going to be one reactor block at 100% per weapon block or per 10 weapon blocks for max weapon recharge or will there still be a power number to math how many weapons a reactor can power?

Just wondering, looks great so far.

 

[Madman198237]

Quite lengthy, not all comprehensible right now (Need to catch up on sleep....again).

I quite agree. Good thing this is a proposal. NO TECH POINTS. Please. Any name but "tech points". Illogical and silly-sounding. We might be a cubic sci-fi game with vacuum energy, but no "tech points". Perhaps instead just have chambers require...I don't know...power? Since both these silly, incorporeal TP and power are generated by the reactor...Replace the functionality: Chambers require X power to function per block. Chambers receiving sufficient power require X time to charge to functionality. No shipyard-spammed ships straight into the fight anymore (But seriously, how often would you have to charge up the shield recharger subsystem? ONCE!).

Next well-meaning criticism (I actually like this proposal in a lot of ways): Why not allow multiple reactors? If I want to run my weapons off of one, my thrusters off of another, and my well-armored jump drive off the most heavily armored smallish reactor ever, well, why not? If reactors can be made a bit more efficient at larger sizes, there is a trade between "well-protected subdivisions" and "absurdly large overengineered self-destruct button with excess power".


Why stabilizer blocks? Why not stabilizing crew stations instead? For now, I'd revamp the stabilizer system like this (Until crew is properly in-game): Stabilizers must be between .05x (Random number pulled out of the void) and .25x (Another number from the void) distances away from the reactor, where x (A unit of "distance", in my simplified example) is the number of blocks in the reactor. In other words, there is a zone around a reactor where, eventually, your "reactor techs" will work. For now, though, stuff them with stabilizers. Not ideal, but it provides for what should become an interesting system later. Not too close (Radiation!) and not too far (Can't physically reach the stuck valve? Well, that's too bad. Hope your Space Life Insurance was paid up). Other systems could be made efficient in the same way. Crew members within X distance, but outside of x distance.

Then, perhaps you could add some sort of remote-control officers (Not near the action), but that's probably definitely a separate suggestion for crew.

 

[materia]

So, since all weapons will have inner power storage enough to fire it once, what will prevent players from building One-Strike Ships - ships with huge alpha strike weapons that uses that inner charge to fire them once and easily annihilate any ship of your size or even bigger.

Especially since you only need to destroy the reactor of your enemy.

I believe the video showed weapons which receive too little energy will lose charge and be unable to fire, thus requiring a constant power even when not fireing; at least that's how i interpreted it.

 

[Ratchet Hundreda]

V E R Y N I C E

please don't name them tech points

 

[Haalon]

I believe the video showed that weapons that receive too little energy will lose charge and be unable to fire, thus requiring a constant power even when not fireing; at least that's how i interpreted it.

Yeah, but this enegy discharge is said to be considerably less than the power consumption per second during the recharge.

 

[materia]

Yeah, but this enegy discharge is said to be considerably less than the power consumption per second during the recharge.

Yeah, i have no idea where the constant vs max power consumption will be put, I'd expect within the 10-25% constant drain if they do go this route.

 

[Madman198237]

I find it funny that they proposed a revamp of our entire power system....And the backlash is almost entirely about a single name of a single, perhaps poorly chosen, design element.

Not bad, Schine.