The Power Overhaul Must NOT Happen ASAP

[kulbolen]

you dont need shields in all your interior spaces to have a strong ship. just make your ship have slightly more dimensions to mass...

 

[Qweesdy]

Hi,

I agree with Az14el. It seems extremely backwards and wasteful to fix crew, then fix power, then refix crew to fit that new system.

The choices are:

a) break the power systems in an attempt to make up for currently unimplemented features, then implement crew (then refix the power system, refix the crew, refix the power system, ....)

b) implement crew (then refix the power system, refix the crew, refix the power system, ....)

One of these choices is "more backwards" because it's completely idiotic, and one of these choices is "less backwards" because it avoids guaranteed additional breakage that may be completely pointless in the long run.

To put it simply, or at least a slight bit clearer, imagine there are six pillars: Power, Weapons, Support, Decor/armor blocks, NPC, and Galaxies. There are lesser pillars as well, and all the pillars have cracks and bumps and will never be perfect, but nevertheless hold up the building called Starmade. What you're asking for is to destroy a part of NPC and fix it, then absolutely redo Power, then destroy that same part of NPC and again rebuild it. It's a waste of mortar, energy, and time.

I'm not asking for the "NPC crew pillar" to be destroyed - I'm asking for it to exist. Currently it's like a short stump that doesn't support any weight because it was started but never finished. Because the "NPC crew pillar" doesn't exist enough to support any of the weight of the building, the building is falling down.

The "power pillar" might have a few bumps, but it does exist and does support its share of the building's weight, and you want to give the "power pillar" a fresh coat of paint while the building's occupants are being crushed by falling rubble.

 

[Lecic]

The new system, at least as I imagine it, will reduce tedium and increase depth of ship design decisions.

Reduce tedium? Sure, but only because the new system wants a maximum of 15% of ship volume to actually be systems, and not because those systems are actually more interesting to design. Increase depth of ship design decisions? No.
And combat? Combat is going to be shit. Remember core drilling? Say hello to that again. One missile direct to the power reactor core and whoops, game over.

 

[KaRe]

I don't see why the power system itself would be made to conform around other systems, especially the NPC. If anything, all systems should conform around it, and it should stay in a defined state with bug fixes here and there, maybe some balancing. Not rewrite it every time a single aspect is changed. Also, even though NPCs are unfinished, they are implemented, and do provide some use, even if rp only. After all, it is still early alpha, and better implementation is one of the next things planned to come soon.

As for the original post, it is nearly impossible to write up a proposal, get the community to agree on something, then code it into the game. I'd give it three months at the least before the first baby step is introduced. Besides, we don't eve know how power will be implemented at this point. All we know is that the community is in turmoil, the proposal was torn to shreds and put on a shrine, and that Schine has gotten better ideas for the system and that a new proposal is likely to be made soon. So I'd recommend forgetting this system and wait for the new proposal.

 

[Qweesdy]

Hi,

I don't see why the power system itself would be made to conform around other systems, especially the NPC. If anything, all systems should conform around it, and it should stay in a defined state with bug fixes here and there, maybe some balancing. Not rewrite it every time a single aspect is changed. Also, even though NPCs are unfinished, they are implemented, and do provide some use, even if rp only. After all, it is still early alpha, and better implementation is one of the next things planned to come soon.

From my perspective; the "overhaul proposal" is to remove power from the game completely and replace it with "heat with buffer zones" in an attempt to encourage ship builders to create interior spaces for NPC crew that don't exist and to encourage "role players" to role play the act of dying from excessive heat (due to trying to exist in spaces that are so hot that even system blocks can't function).

 

[Az14el]

It's not only to encourage crew/interior, it's for a lot of reasons that happen to include concerns over interior space not really being used, as one part of it. Actual game performance & by extension the running costs for anybody to rent/run a server for us to actually get to play online are a big part of it in my opinion.

 

[KaRe]

As for the original post, it is nearly impossible to write up a proposal, get the community to agree on something, then code it into the game. I'd give it three months at the least before the first baby step is introduced. Besides, we don't eve know how power will be implemented at this point. All we know is that the community is in turmoil, the proposal was torn to shreds and put on a shrine, and that Schine has gotten better ideas for the system and that a new proposal is likely to be made soon. So I'd recommend forgetting this system and wait for the new proposal.

 

[sayerulz]

Reduce tedium? Sure, but only because the new system wants a maximum of 15% of ship volume to actually be systems, and not because those systems are actually more interesting to design. Increase depth of ship design decisions? No.
And combat? Combat is going to be shit. Remember core drilling? Say hello to that again. One missile direct to the power reactor core and whoops, game over.

You are making assumptions about the specific nature of how those systems are going to be designed and wether or not it will be interesting. And it will definitely increase the depth of design decisions, because placement and armoring of systems will be extremely important, and so would be the balance of quantity vs. power of reactors.

And it would not even remotely be core drilling. A ship can only ever have one core, a core is only one block, a core has a big marker on it, and all AI and missiles in the days of core drilling aimed directly at the core without exception. none of these things would be true of the new systems, unless Schine completely screws it up, and if you look at any upcoming change with the assumption that it will be implemented in the worst possible way, then you may as well just stop playing the game now, since you are already certain that it will only ever get worse.

 

[Lecic]

placement and armoring of systems is extremely important

Fixed that for you.

And it would not even remotely be core drilling.

One missile or even likely an explosive cannon hitting the power core on any ship small enough to only need a single power reactor core is going to be instantly K/O'd. That's exactly the same as core drilling, except it's not labeled.

 

[sayerulz]

Fixed that for you.



One missile or even likely an explosive cannon hitting the power core on any ship small enough to only need a single power reactor core is going to be instantly K/O'd. That's exactly the same as core drilling, except it's not labeled.

It's not important though, because you just fill every inch of your ship with systems. There is no putting extra armor over your power or shields, because your power and shields comprise your whole ship. The only exception to this is auxiliary power.

And if you understood what I had said, it isn't a question of needing more than one reactor, it's a question of being able to mount more than one reactor. Do you put one big reactor that produces a lot of power efficiently but that totally disables you if it gets destroyed, or do you have a less efficient setup with multiple reactors that can still function if one or more of them is damaged. That is a meaningful design decision that, if these changes are implemented in a competent manner, will be possible where it was not before.

So small ships will be less durable? Good. Combine that with better AI and thrusters that actually produce thrust and then perhaps fighter combat will not just be 20 minuets of two ships clumsily sliding around and shooting each other to almost no effect.

 

[Deserea]

It's not important though, because you just fill every inch of your ship with systems. There is no putting extra armor over your power or shields, because your power and shields comprise your whole ship. The only exception to this is auxiliary power.

And if you understood what I had said, it isn't a question of needing more than one reactor, it's a question of being able to mount more than one reactor. Do you put one big reactor that produces a lot of power efficiently but that totally disables you if it gets destroyed, or do you have a less efficient setup with multiple reactors that can still function if one or more of them is damaged. That is a meaningful design decision that, if these changes are implemented in a competent manner, will be possible where it was not before.

So small ships will be less durable? Good. Combine that with better AI and thrusters that actually produce thrust and then perhaps fighter combat will not just be 20 minuets of two ships clumsily sliding around and shooting each other to almost no effect.

Sorry, id rather not have to go back to ye olden days where getting your core hit once destroyed you. Didnt matter if you where small or large.

And yes it kind of is important.

And also currently you can have that, at least i see it. You can make power reactor cubes, you know the specially made ones, or the lines, both are efficient, ones just not as effecient as the other(can be close depending on ship size.) If one gets hit, its probably going to be pretty much disabled(the cube) the other is still going to work if the hole line isnt destroyed, and if you build even a little like i do, you have a couple backups spread out throughout your ship so that if one power line gets damaged another can take its place.

and another thing, players will still find a way to exploit the "new" hopefully(my opinion follows) never added power idea, or the current one.

As for the small ship thing, that could be solved by changing the weapon damage honestly. Thats always been a problem in my POV due to how very little damage weapons at that scale do. Its not very realistic to me and i know realism isnt much sought after in this game(or is it?) id kinda like to see some kind of way to scale damage based on ship scale...or something..(different thread...) Thrusters should never have been nerfed as bad as they are in their current state, so thats a null point until it gets fixed which they should do. Id like to not have a ship thats mostly thrusters just to go anywhere..

 

[Lecic]

It's not important though, because you just fill every inch of your ship with systems. There is no putting extra armor over your power or shields, because your power and shields comprise your whole ship. The only exception to this is auxiliary power.

Sweet jesus, weow. Please do not talk about systems and armor- you clearly known nothing about it.

And if you understood what I had said, it isn't a question of needing more than one reactor, it's a question of being able to mount more than one reactor. Do you put one big reactor that produces a lot of power efficiently but that totally disables you if it gets destroyed, or do you have a less efficient setup with multiple reactors that can still function if one or more of them is damaged. That is a meaningful design decision that, if these changes are implemented in a competent manner, will be possible where it was not before.

Yes, let me fill up even more of my ship with unusable heat box volume using less efficient reactors. I can already see where this is going for small ships- a glass cannon meta.

So small ships will be less durable? Good. Combine that with better AI and thrusters that actually produce thrust and then perhaps fighter combat will not just be 20 minuets of two ships clumsily sliding around and shooting each other to almost no effect.

Yes, let's completely ruin the already low durability of small ships to make FIGHTER COMBAT slightly faster.

Fighter combat is slow because small weapons have difficulty penetrating the armor, and not because systems themselves have too much durability.

 

[Ithirahad]

It sounds to me as though the heat mechanics will be balanced so that small ships can still more or less fill up with systems without having to worry about heating up, unless they try to mount oversized systems for their tiny reactors. This would be both so that small ships wouldn't become super shitty, and so that there is a learning curve involving figuring out cooling chambers and the like as you get into larger and larger ships, but small ships are easier for new players starting out.

 

[kulbolen]

the reason small ships can be not shitty now is because you can stack oversized weapons onto them since offense scales much better than defense. if you limit them by heat and reactor size further than their block count already limits them, youll make them ACTUALLY worthless. as it stands a small ship with good design can and anpther small defense heavy ship very quickly using weapon stacking, but the average small ship takes a long time to kill another small ship because it doesnt stak up weapons... and of course we all know that at small sizes weapons have trouble breaking armor.

this may or may not happen with the new system based on the ratios and shit, so this isnt even an argument to anything except limiting small ship weapons being a really bad idea, but as it stands small ships can mount some pretty substantial firepower. if the new system limits weaponry mountable by said ships, theyll become basically worthless, the same as most people already perceive them now.

 

[Ithirahad]

I doubt that small-ship guns would be made less powerful than they are now. That'd be counterproductive. When I say 'oversized', I mean attempting to mount a cruiser gun or something on a heavy fighter and expecting to be able to fire it more than once or twice without melting the ship.