The Power Overhaul has to happen ASAP

[kingreol]

We took a break after working non-stop on the NPC update and steam winter sale. As mentioned in previous news posts, we would not be returning until late January to mid-February. We're currently working on a feature/features that doesn't have a definitive release date just yet. News about updates should come out soon.

As for the power stuff, the majority of work there is planning, testing and balancing. We don't predict a lot of dev hours involved (we couldn't know for certain until working on it). So, if we do go ahead, development will be working on new features while power is fleshed out and tested.

When do bug fixes show up in the timetable. T1143 puts a damper on playing with the npcs

 

[Lecic]

- Can't be worse than existing system.

Ohohoho, yes it can.

 

[DrTarDIS]

We took a break after working non-stop on the NPC update and steam winter sale. As mentioned in previous news posts, we would not be returning until late January to mid-February. We're currently working on a feature/features that doesn't have a definitive release date just yet. News about updates should come out soon.

As for the power stuff, the majority of work there is planning, testing and balancing. We don't predict a lot of dev hours involved (we couldn't know for certain until working on it). So, if we do go ahead, development will be working on new features while power is fleshed out and tested.

Try working Negative systems HP for system blocks into your discussions on plans. AFAICT that would result in a very similar effect to the spirit of the proposal. Alas it would need a bit of code change, I tried testing it in a new world, but the syshp variable can't be negative in the current code structure and I can't quite find where in the obfuscated section I'd need to switch the unsigned to signed. (Dissertation hidden in spoiler tags.)

 

[Lecic]

Try working Negative systems HP for system blocks into your discussions on plans. AFAICT that would result in a very similar effect to the spirit of the proposal. Alas it would need a bit of code change, I tried testing it in a new world, but the syshp variable can't be negative in the current code structure and I can't quite find where in the obfuscated section I'd need to switch the unsigned to signed. (Dissertation hidden in spoiler tags.)

What would negative SHP on a block accomplish? You would GAIN SHP when it was destroyed, and putting one of your ship would reduce its total SHP? For what purpose?

 

[DrTarDIS]

What would negative SHP on a block accomplish? You would GAIN SHP when it was destroyed, and putting one of your ship would reduce its total SHP? For what purpose?

in short: "fill a ship with systems and a useless outer skin" was something schema brought up as the core reasoning behind the power rework proposal. It's goals were to reduce the number of blocks placed to get to a desirable efficiency/utility persystem.
The goal was to "make hull useful" and "reduce number of system blocks placed." The mechanic of "heat boxes" effectively renders down to "systems blocks need empty areas around them" I ASSuME that was to make the differences between solid-fill and RP-interior less drastic. The very idea of "heat" instead of and/or supplementing power generation seemed to be an attempt to put a balance into there. Ham-fisted as many(including me) seemed to consider the proposal.

Coming at it from that perspective, I was brainstorming a way to do "effectively the same thing" based on current mechanics.

With that set of conditions to frame what i mean: If "arbitrary number of systems blocks" needed "arbitrary number of hull/framework/support" to function, it would emulate the "heat bubble", if the ratio of that system:support determined how easilly a ship overheated, it would put in an analogue to the "heat" system.

I agree with you that "You would GAIN SHP when it was destroyed" seems counter-intuitive, but I consider the current mechanic of "placing blocks while damaged" kinda covers that. Your SHP Total would increase, but the "current value" needs reboot/repair to go up. End effect: Closer to overheat % as either blocktype is destroyed.

"For what purpose?"
It would emulate the proposal somewhat, ships that were "very balanced" in + vs- SHP would have a very small pool outcome, that would easily overheat on damage. Ships with a high ratio of + blocks to a low ratio of - blocks would be "very tanky." Ships with more - than + wouldn't even work.

This post goes into a lot more detail on it (in the spoiler tag, like I mentioned in the in-line link in the post you quoted) , I encourage you to read it. and give me some detailed feedback over there.

Effectively, the new proposal seems to be something like "systems cause an area load". I'm puzzeling it out as a balance thing with the "room" blocks they seem to want to encourage as a source of syshp, which you "spend" on system blocks.
Eg cannons

 <BlockResourceType>2</BlockResourceType>
  <ProducedInFactory>4</ProducedInFactory>
  <BasicResourceFactory>0</BasicResourceFactory>
  <FactoryBakeTime>5.0</FactoryBakeTime>
  <Animated>false</Animated>
  <Armour>0.0</Armour>
  <ArmorHPContribution>0</ArmorHPContribution>
  <StructureHPContribution>75</StructureHPContribution>
  <Transparency>false</Transparency>
  <InShop>true</InShop>
  <Orientation>false</Orientation>
  <Slab>0</Slab>
  <Enterable>true</Enterable>
  <Mass>0.1</Mass>
  <Volume>0.1</Volume>
  <Hitpoints>50</Hitpoints>
  <Placable>true</Placable>
  <InRecipe>true</InRecipe>
  <CanActivate>false</CanActivate>

Not thinking about <Hitpoints>50</Hitpoints> I mean if <StructureHPContribution>75</StructureHPContribution> was a negative value on "load" blocks.

I'm reasoning a certain amount of hull and whatnot would be a requirement for the block's placement. Without that, the craft spirals into overheat from the weapon's negative effect on the pool. does it combined with some scale-changes on systems blocks themselves effectively simulate "needing control rods" or whatnot.
I'm not neccesairily saying weapons only, just using it as a starting value. Had intended to edit some more expanded thoughts in later.
It gives both PVP and RP ships something to think about in mass vs hp vs damage output vs damage mitigation mechanics. At least on my first thought. it might switch balance mechanics a strange direction.
It would also mean that "getting them blown up" without destroying hull as well moved you away from structHP50%.

Just considering it as a growth-limiter variable. I'm thinking if they specialised cicuits, motherbords, and "intended hulling blocks" as "overheat protection" bonus system hp blocks allowing you to have the "takes support but projects influnce" blocks like "shield recharge, power, weapons" etc the "penalties" on "the useless outer shell" would become assets.

Depending on if you building in-universe or in-shipyard you'd have to have enought "hulling" to prevent you from overheating if you place too many.

Eg: "iconic" shipcore + thruster + energy. Let's say that's supposed to be the "absolute best thrust to mass to syshp" and use it as a baseline.
Thuster 25 bhp 100 shp
reactor 25 bhp 100 shp
shipcore 250BHP 100SHP 100AHP
Totals 300BHP 300SHP 100AHP
If the "iconic" stick was still to work, but be "fragile without hull" the thruster and reactor could be assigned sys values anywhere up to -50 each but not both.
Let's assume "not completely useless" is an intended level of "iconic balance" and give them bot -20 Syshp while maintaining BHP.
totals 300BHP 60 SHP 100 AHP.
If ship core is shot, structure will overheat after somewhere between 250-350 damage when it loses the ship core +100 SHP and falls to -40 from the other two.
if either of the other two is shot, the SYS total will increase to 80. Weather the total increase includes a "refund of syshp" too might matter in larger block balances, but for now causes no overheat. it does however disable the thust:mass or power regen of the ship, crippling it in another way.

Another idea could be to have engines be "part of the SHP pool" since disabling engines just seems like a good idea.
Somethilg like Core +100SHP, thruster +50SHP, reactor -100SHP
placing 2 reactors on a single core, or on a core with only 1 engine would put structure hp negative(either prevent placement or "disable ship." placing some hull or deco around would allow more systems.

Adding a hull allows you to install more systems. the "useless armor shell" might need some strategic thinking. perhapse inverted BHP:SHP ratio of armor levels to provide specific function. Heavy armor has a low syshp bonus of +5, standard a mild +10, hull better at +15, and "decoration blocks"(for lack of another term) like lights and consoles better still at "arbitrary room enabling number" but very low actual block hp requiring protection.

I think a special argument might be in order for aux and other potential "high risk" blocks being a source of +syshp rather than -syshp. but don't quote me on it

I'm thinking an end atio that's favorable to having an appropriate "hull volume" in standard armor or whatnot, but at an appropriate weight penalty to make deco and "empty spaces" viable and useful against missiles etc.
Balancing vs overall thrust, mass, systems, AHP and power regen maintains complexity, building to any particular "ideal" can be defined by the mass of the +shp blocks and the -SHP blocks combined in dependence. Placement of "functions you'd want to lose first" lets you chose what systems "fail" and take the load off your SHP pool taking damage from hull/support loss.

I like this, I might go experiment.