Thought experiment/discussion on power 2.0 hull shape

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    Is there any reason you couldn't have a very similar design with the current power system
    No, and that doesn't matter. It's broken and ridiculous in either system. It's idiotic to act as if that, because this was also in the old system, that means it isn't a problem in the new one.

    The new system should be designed to actively discourage building ships like this, not just not encourage it through "without stabiliser efficiency depending on spacing from the reactor." The current 2.0 system even actively encourages building like this.

    I'd say its main weakness is its fragility: virtually every hit will disconnect reactors or chambers, reducing performance. Also, would you armour it? It looks like covering it in armour would be prohibitively heavy.
    Virtually every hit will do zero damage because your ship is almost impossible to hit, even with beams, because of how beam tick rates work when trying to hit extremely fast vessels. You don't have physical armor. Speed and the fact that 99.9% of your volume is empty space make you nearly immune to weapons fire. This is already the meta in the current power system. 2.0 just replaces power lines with conduits leading to chambers.
     

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    My setup is practical. Demonstrably so, actually. Feel free to call it a joke, but if it works, it ain't a joke.
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    502
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    I feel that the new power systems has yet to adress some of the major issues identified by the exploit... I mean PvP orientated players. They should be the go to for helping design the new power system so that it is fair, balanced and encourages designs which resemble spaceships.
    Just a querry to the Cloud ships, how would the reactor in 2.0 be constructed:? Since it all has to be clumped up... oh wait, now I get it XD Giant 3d grids ftw! Good luck shooting out 2,000 induvidual conections before the reactor starts to lose power :P

    Look pvp masteraces! I can design ships too :D I can even make them look artistic!
    Here are my reactor designs:
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    502
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    Bonus points if you actually make a Flying Fibonacci Sequence, if they called it ugly you could call them out for being mathematically wrong :D

    I'm pretty sure it can be both ugly and mathmaticaly right lol :P
    I would also like to thank windows pipe screensaver for inspiring a new era in Starmade Design!

    Now I can use it to design ships ^_^
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    No, and that doesn't matter. It's broken and ridiculous in either system. It's idiotic to act as if that, because this was also in the old system, that means it isn't a problem in the new one.

    The new system should be designed to actively discourage building ships like this, not just not encourage it through "without stabiliser efficiency depending on spacing from the reactor." The current 2.0 system even actively encourages building like this.

    Virtually every hit will do zero damage because your ship is almost impossible to hit, even with beams, because of how beam tick rates work when trying to hit extremely fast vessels. You don't have physical armor. Speed and the fact that 99.9% of your volume is empty space make you nearly immune to weapons fire. This is already the meta in the current power system. 2.0 just replaces power lines with conduits leading to chambers.
    So what this boils down to is that power 2.0 isn't responsible for a design like that working, designs like that already worked with the current power system.

    The current 2.0 system even actively encourages building like this.
    Like what exactly? Not like the design we're currently discussing, it spaces the stabiliser and reactor far beyond what power 2.0 requires, so it obviously wasn't the driver for this type of design.
     
    Last edited:

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    It's pretty much the reason why devbuild isn't meeting the goals schine laid out in their design document, it can't unless it tackles 'meta' design concerns from both extremes, not just volume & fill percentage but also dimensions & spacing
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    It's pretty much the reason why devbuild isn't meeting the goals schine laid out in their design document, it can't unless it tackles 'meta' design concerns from both extremes, not just volume & fill percentage but also dimensions & spacing
    I don't see why anyone assumes that a power update should be the fix to spaghetti meta. The power update didn't create this meta, they're independent of each other. It can have its own fix.

    I haven't given fixing spaghetti meta any thought, but one idea that springs immediately to mind is missiles exploding based on proximity to a target instead of impacting the target - possibly as a separate subclass of missile. Have them explode when there's blocks in their blast radius. Spaghetti would fare badly, especially with power 2.0 since breaking a conduit stops it working (and even more so with my suggestion that stabilisers and reactors be connected with conduit)
    That's how missiles do it in RL.

    EDIT: and although I don't actually know it, I kind of suspect SM doesn't apply realistic rotational inertia. Turn rate would be another good way to punish spaghetti.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Coyote27
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    502
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    I don't see why anyone assumes that a power update should be the fix to spaghetti meta. The power update didn't create this meta, they're independent of each other. It can have its own fix.

    I haven't given fixing spaghetti meta any thought, but one idea that springs immediately to mind is missiles exploding based on proximity to a target instead of impacting the target - possibly as a separate subclass of missile. Have them explode when there's blocks in their blast radius. Spaghetti would fare badly, especially with power 2.0 since breaking a conduit stops it working (and even more so with my suggestion that stabilisers and reactors be connected with conduit)
    That's how missiles do it in RL.
    Gives it no thought... then suddenly comes out with a brilliant suggestion o_O....
    Please do give SM abit more thought then : )
    I agree that it is seperate issue from the power system, and trying to build to power system around it will create more problems than it will solve.
    Maybe we have finaly found a use for the Cannon-Missile failiure? Flak guns anyone?
    Fires a spread of projectiles (spread dependent on Slave%) that detonate near entities. In effective vs armoured (due to wasted damage) but effective vs swarms or clouds.
     

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    well, yeah, it wont fix meta issues, but I'm not the one who claimed that, none of us players are

    Statements like;

    The current meta has always been to fill most of your ship with systems, as empty space would be a waste if it could hold more systems (or armor).

    We moved away from that with this power system, as it's impossible to get a good oversight what is in your ship and where all of the groups are if it's filled to the brim.
    Are the worry here, as well as vague "if/when" statements regarding further trade offs for dimensions & spacing
    They have it essentially backwards as far as any real meta building within a reasonable mass range yet speak as if they're making progress against exploitative builds, as of yet they're not. The intent is mostly all thats there.

    Not to pick on Lancake specifically, he's not the only one and largely has the more common community feedbacks to go on, but this is not exactly an intuitive game and many strengths are not immediately obvious
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    well, yeah, it wont fix meta issues, but I'm not the one who claimed that, none of us players are

    Statements like;
    The current meta has always been to fill most of your ship with systems, as empty space would be a waste if it could hold more systems (or armor).

    We moved away from that with this power system, as it's impossible to get a good oversight what is in your ship and where all of the groups are if it's filled to the brim.
    Are the worry here, as well as vague "if/when" statements regarding further trade offs for dimensions & spacing
    They have it essentially backwards as far as any real meta building within a reasonable mass range yet speak as if they're making progress against exploitative builds, as of yet they're not. The intent is mostly all thats there.
    Looks to me like there's no reference to spaghetti meta there, he's only addressed a specific "meta" of empty space in a hull being a waste when considering performance. Some players have then decided on their own that the power update should also address spaghetti meta...

    I'm repeating myself, but I don't see any reason why it should - a separate mechanic can fix spaghetti meta.
    [doublepost=1508296196,1508295966][/doublepost]Let's ask, perhaps we'll get an answer:
    Lancake Are you aware of spaghetti meta, and are there any plans in the pipeline to address it?
     

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    It's an abbreviation of Most Effective Tactic Available though, there's no two of those, by definition
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    It's an abbreviation of Most Effective Tactic Available though, there's no two of those, by definition
    I know, I don't claim Lancake is correct in calling what he's referring to as meta, so I put quotation marks around it.
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    Like what exactly? Not like the design we're currently discussing, it spaces the stabiliser and reactor far beyond what power 2.0 requires, so it obviously wasn't the driver for this type of design.
    I haven't 100% been keeping up with the minute balance changes in the dev updates, but the stabilizer distances in 2.0 were pretty massive at larger reactor sizes. Furthermore, by NOT punishing this sort of design, it encourages it, as there is no incentive to NOT spaghettify your vessel.

    So what this boils down to is that power 2.0 isn't responsible for a design like that working, designs like that already worked with the current power system.
    No, power 2.0 is responsible for the design working within its confines. Power 1.0 has zero effect on 2.0. 2.0 should not allow these vessels to exist to begin with.

    I haven't given fixing spaghetti meta any thought, but one idea that springs immediately to mind is missiles exploding based on proximity to a target instead of impacting the target - possibly as a separate subclass of missile. Have them explode when there's blocks in their blast radius.
    This would be cool, but I don't think it would even do that much to fix the problems. Most of these ships run massive manual missile shootdown arrays, and missiles are entirely incompetent at tracking fast ships, even when they should have the speed to do so. Especially when that ship is far away or across a sector border.

    You are attempting to treat the symptoms instead of the cause. We need to fix the power system so that spaghetti doesn't work.

    EDIT: and although I don't actually know it, I kind of suspect SM doesn't apply realistic rotational inertia. Turn rate would be another good way to punish spaghetti.
    Spaghetti ships already reach the maximum turn speed. Turn rate is not an effective balancing function on large ships when turrets exist and aiming cones for manual weapons are gigantic anyway.

    I don't see why anyone assumes that a power update should be the fix to spaghetti meta. The power update didn't create this meta, they're independent of each other. It can have its own fix.
    I'm repeating myself, but I don't see any reason why it should - a separate mechanic can fix spaghetti meta.
    You are looking at things backwards. Flying spaghetti monsters are not independent of the power system. They are just variables of both power systems because of failures to properly balance them out. Both systems encourage the building style. We can and SHOULD fix the spaghetti by fixing the power system.

    Here's my proposal.
    Step One: Give a maximum range as well as a minimum range to stabilizers so there is a range they must actually be placed in to work. This makes it so the reactor and stabilizer must be a combined unit, making it harder to spread the ship out into spaghetti strands.
    Step Two: Conduits should follow the resistance rules of real wires. Longer and thinner conduits should have increased resistance, reducing the amount of power that gets to their system. For an average normal ship, which might be roughly 30x30x300 and weigh a few tens of thousands of mass, this isn't a problem as they can just make their conduits a little thicker for their systems on the absolute far end of the ship. For a 30k mass spaghetti ship that might cover a kilometer and a half, however, this is hellish abuse on power efficiency or on their thin profile when they need to make their conduits into 10 meter thick columns to cross such a vast distance.
    Step Three: All systems (weapons, shields, thrusters, turret docks and enhancers, etc) should require a conduit connection. This is the final nail in the spaghetti monster's coffin, as it can no longer rely using gulfs of empty space between each individual thruster and shield. Each system group would need its own thick conduit leading to it or it will have to rely on "wireless power" which will have heavy debuffs or efficiency loss, and if they have to lead conduits to all their spread out groups in the first place there's no longer a reason to build spaghetti, because it's become so solid with conduit lines that it would be more efficient and "meta" to just build a normal ship.

    That's just how I would fix it from the power perspective, of course. I would also like to see things like NPC crew and weapon changes (like your proximity missiles), to help further it and make regular ship building and combat more interesting in general, but I think the power system should be able to stand up to spaghetti on its own without needing to rely on the fickle shifting of other systems.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    I haven't 100% been keeping up with the minute balance changes in the dev updates, but the stabilizer distances in 2.0 were pretty massive at larger reactor sizes. Furthermore, by NOT punishing this sort of design, it encourages it, as there is no incentive to NOT spaghettify your vessel.
    Lack of disincentive is not encouragement. Not every new mechanic, nor just the most recent new mechanic, should necessarily have to fix spaghetti meta.

    No, power 2.0 is responsible for the design working within its confines. Power 1.0 has zero effect on 2.0. 2.0 should not allow these vessels to exist to begin with.
    There's no basis for stating that it's power 2.0's responsibility to fix spaghetti meta. Power 2.0 has a goal, and that doesn't need to include spaghetti meta - another mechanic can fix it.

    This would be cool, but I don't think it would even do that much to fix the problems. Most of these ships run massive manual missile shootdown arrays, and missiles are entirely incompetent at tracking fast ships, even when they should have the speed to do so. Especially when that ship is far away or across a sector border.
    The number of missiles that would need to get through would be relatively low.
    But perhaps Dire Venom's idea is better in that case - a cannon flak effect, no shootdowns then. Perhaps implemented as a low damage explosion at a point in space (more thought required)

    You are attempting to treat the symptoms instead of the cause. We need to fix the power system so that spaghetti doesn't work.
    We've already established power isn't responsible - two unrelated power systems both allow spaghetti meta. Power isn't the cause.

    Spaghetti ships already reach the maximum turn speed. Turn rate is not an effective balancing function on large ships when turrets exist and aiming cones for manual weapons are gigantic anyway.
    For manual weapons that depends on how much difference an update would make. As rotational inertia scales with distance squared, I think the effect could be massive.

    You are looking at things backwards. Flying spaghetti monsters are not independent of the power system. They are just variables of both power systems because of failures to properly balance them out. Both systems encourage the building style. We can and SHOULD fix the spaghetti by fixing the power system.
    That's an opinion, I disagree. It should be fixed, but another mechanic can be used.

    Here's my proposal.
    Step One: Give a maximum range as well as a minimum range to stabilizers so there is a range they must actually be placed in to work.
    Sounds fine. Possibly modified to not have hard caps, but a peak efficiency distance bracket which drops off either too far or too close? (0 in the image is the ideal distance)

    This makes it so the reactor and stabilizer must be a combined unit, making it harder to spread the ship out into spaghetti strands.
    I don't follow how this creates a combined unit? Do you mean reactor and stabilisers touch as a single mass?
    Step Two: Conduits should follow the resistance rules of real wires. Longer and thinner conduits should have increased resistance, reducing the amount of power that gets to their system. For an average normal ship, which might be roughly 30x30x300 and weigh a few tens of thousands of mass, this isn't a problem as they can just make their conduits a little thicker for their systems on the absolute far end of the ship. For a 30k mass spaghetti ship that might cover a kilometer and a half, however, this is hellish abuse on power efficiency or on their thin profile when they need to make their conduits into 10 meter thick columns to cross such a vast distance.
    Sounds good, but I wonder if this is too much complexity for a player jumping in fresh...
    Step Three: All systems (weapons, shields, thrusters, turret docks and enhancers, etc) should require a conduit connection. This is the final nail in the spaghetti monster's coffin, as it can no longer rely using gulfs of empty space between each individual thruster and shield. Each system group would need its own thick conduit leading to it or it will have to rely on "wireless power" which will have heavy debuffs or efficiency loss, and if they have to lead conduits to all their spread out groups in the first place there's no longer a reason to build spaghetti, because it's become so solid with conduit lines that it would be more efficient and "meta" to just build a normal ship.
    I love it.

    If you suggest this I'll vote for it. I think it achieves both what Schine is aiming for, and breaks spaghetti meta.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages
    228
    Reaction score
    145
    dont even need extra conduits - just have 'blocks must touch at least one other block' ....
    [doublepost=1508304011,1508303788][/doublepost](power 1.0 allows spaghetti to effective at larger sizes only really - 2.0 might allow for micro-spaghettification)
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,105
    Reaction score
    1,222
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    There's no basis for stating that it's power 2.0's responsibility to fix spaghetti meta. Power 2.0 has a goal, and that doesn't need to include spaghetti meta - another mechanic can fix it.
    I thought the point of 2.0 was to fix the issues of the previous power system. Like spaghetti, among other things.

    We've already established power isn't responsible - two unrelated power systems both allow spaghetti meta. Power isn't the cause.
    No.

    1.0 heavily encourages spaghetti because systems require no connections and power works best in the long spaghetti lines.

    2.0 encourages spaghetti with stabilizer distance. It is a step in the right direction from 1.0 but since it has no discouragement and even some encouragement, it does nothing to fix spaghetti.

    I don't follow how this creates a combined unit? Do you mean reactor and stabilisers touch an a single mass?
    I mean they're a sort of two part combined unit. I want them to feel like they have some sort of connection rather than the current system where they can be anywhere on the ship. I am thinking of reactors and stabilizers like the reactor components and concrete/lead radiation shielding of a real world nuclear reactor.


    Also sounds good, but I wonder if this is too much complexity for a player jumping in fresh...
    It should be fine. The average new player will be building ships that only need 1 meter thick conduits for quite some time. By then they'll be able to handle "long & thin = power drops."

    If you suggest this I'll vote for it. I think it achieves both what Schine is aiming for, and breaks spaghetti meta.
    Thanks. Here's my thread. A Solution To Flying Spaghetti Monsters
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    I thought the point of 2.0 was to fix the issues of the previous power system. Like spaghetti, among other things.

    No.

    1.0 heavily encourages spaghetti because systems require no connections and power works best in the long spaghetti lines.

    2.0 encourages spaghetti with stabilizer distance. It is a step in the right direction from 1.0 but since it has no discouragement and even some encouragement, it does nothing to fix spaghetti.
    I think it's pointless to continue a back-and-forth series of opposing opinions that have already been made clear, and that can't be proven or disproven as facts with some numbers/data, so I won't. Neither of us is going to change our minds. I'll just point out that saying something is so doesn't make it so.
     

    jayman38

    Precentor-Primus, pro-tempore
    Joined
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages
    2,518
    Reaction score
    787
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I wanted to have fun doing a fun thing, so I made a thing. It could be a vertical ship. I extended the conduits in case the design requirements eventually require conduits to the stabilizers. Wheeee!

    PowerSystem2_ThoughtExperiment_20171019.png
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    I wanted to have fun doing a fun thing, so I made a thing. It could be a vertical ship. I extended the conduits in case the design requirements eventually require conduits to the stabilizers. Wheeee!

    View attachment 45648
    Interesting one. How about swapping the secondary reactor and the top left chamber so that damage to the left is less likely to take out all reactors, and the two right hand chambers get closer to a reactor?