Volumetric Reactors: A Comprehensive Alternative Proposal Power System™ [Updooted!]

[Kimiro]

Abstract and Context – What This Is and Why It May Be A Good Idea

Power systems, the soft cap, reactors specifics and how they work are probably one of the oldest debates in all of Starmade. There have been numerous incremental tweaks to how they work, as well as the recently proposed system overhaul posted by Schine not that long ago. As I stated in that thread, I find the implementation, as proposed, to be somewhat distasteful on a few key points (chiefly because of the thermodynamic discrepancy having a reactor acting as a “heat sink” poses), but that's irrelevant. What I instead wish to do is propose something of my own, perhaps throw another spaghetti noodle at the wall and see what sticks. So without further delay, I introduce the concept behind this post.

Volumetric Reactors – What It Means, How They Work

A volumetric reactor is a reactor where the size (and therefore output) is proportioned to the dimensions of the vessel on which it's installed. To simplify building, the ratio is based on a single numerical comparison: The sum of the dimensions of the vessel versus the sum of the dimensions of the reactor. This allows a reactor to be more easily built after a vessel is already fleshed out (or conversely allows you to know the size a ship you intend to build so it can support a given reactor).

To wit: A vessel with dimensions L: 120, W: 45 and H:33 (our prototypical "example vessel") has a dimensional value of (Dim-)198. At an 8 to 1 ratio, the maximum reactor size this vessel could support is (Dim-)24 (always round off). This number represents the total reactor dimensions that our example vessel could have installed. This means any reactor in the following list of ranges is a valid candidate: 22 x 1 x 1, 16 x 4 x 4, 8 x 8 x 8, or any combination of three positive numbers that add up to 24 (or less; you can divide your reactor volume up as well - see Multiple Reactors for more on that).

Reactor BaseOutput is determined by a simple formula:

(ReactorFrameBlockCount + MaxReactorDim) x 1500 = BaseOutput

The frame is the cuboid which is defined by the reactor frame blocks, like so:

Spoiler: Reactor Frame

An example reactor frame, 7 x 6 x 6 in size.

This of course means that certain arrangements are more powerful than others for a given Dim value of a reactor, as they will have more or fewer frame blocks, depending. The example pictured, if it were installed on our example ship, would provide:

(60 + 24) x 1500 = 156,000 e/s

Reactor BaseCapacity is:

(5 x BaseOutput)

Our example reactor above would have a capacity of:

156,000 x 5 = 780,000

But this is only half the reactor at this point (though the only requirement to have it work, technically). The other half is what goes inside the frame. Filling the interior of the frame (ignoring the walls, as they aren't part of the power calculations; available space is (7-2)*(6-2)*(6-2) = 80 blocks for our example) with the following blocks: more Reactor Frames, Parallel Reactors and/or Buffering Capacitors. These additional functions of the reactor are, naturally, only available on reactors of 3 x 3 x 3 or larger (a Dim-9 reactor; of which you can have one of these additional blocks). These blocks provide a modifying effect on the reactor output and the power capacity of the vessel, and can be combined however you desire to achieve the final result (for simplicity I've opted to show three reactors filled with a single type, but this is neither the expected plan nor optimal). The exact proposed values for this are:

Reactor Frame ("General Reactor") bonuses: 0.07 generation, 0.07 capacity
Parallel Reactor ("Parallel Reactor") bonuses: 0.1 generation, 0.04 capacity
Buffering Capacitor ("Buffering Reactor") bonuses: 0.04 generation, 0.1 capacity

The basic formula is: (1 + NumCoreBlocks )^ Bonus x Baseline

Spoiler: General Reactor

(1 + 80)^0.07 x 156,000 = 263,134 e/s generation
(1 + 80)^0.07 x 780,000 = 1,060,934 capacity
Final ratio: 24% capacity recharge/second

Spoiler: Paralleled Reactor

(1 + 80)^0.1 x 156,000 = 242,088 e/s generation
(1 + 80)^0.04 x 780,000 =929,895 capacity
Final ratio: 168% capacity recharge/second

Spoiler: Buffered Reactor

(1 + 80)^0.04 x 193,456 = 230,633 e/s generation
(1 + 80)^0.1 x 780,000 = 6,318,000 capacity
Final ratio: 3.65% capacity recharge/second

Even at this comparatively small scale, the impact of these additional systems is fairly pronounced, and as reactor size expands and the internal volume increases, these effects increase dramatically. On large vessels - such as those capable of supporting a Dim-32 reactor - the core blocks may provide an enormous benefit, possibly even giving more than double the base reactor's output or capacity. As well, as the reactor size scales up, the distinction between the three core filling blocks becomes more pronounced.

Protecting Your Reactors

Reactors are sensitive, perhaps even volatile, structures. A single hit to a reactor from a weapon powerful enough to destroy one of the blocks it is comprised of will compromise the entire reactor – violently. They are intended to be be buried in the bowels of your ship, in a well armoured location, away from beams and missiles. This effect is not instantaneous, but rather it will experience a timed failure ("Warning: 20 seconds to warp core breach."), giving you time to activate some system by which damage may be limited, or by which you might escape the suddenly very likely crippled vessel.

It would be unfair to have a giant, glaring weakpoint in your vessel without some means of protecting it from whatever unfriendly fire may come your way. Enter the Reactor Containment Shield. This block, intended to fit into the until-now empty walls of a reactor, serves as a buffer against catastrophic failure. If a reactor would lose a block and there is at least one Reactor Containment Shield still within the bounding box of the reactor walls, one of the RCS blocks is destroyed instead (note: the RCS blocks can be destroyed normally, like any other block - direct hits to them can take them out). These blocks aren't all that much tougher than the components the reactor is built from, but do provide a fair amount of mitigation against catastrophic explosions. This protection doesn't come freely, however: The base output of the reactor is reduced by 100 for every Reactor Containment Shield in the walls. On our 7 x 6 x 6, it's possible to have (4 x 5 x 4 + 2 x 4 x 4=) 112, meaning your reactor can be much, much more sturdy versus damage but conversely loses out on 11,200 generation (and a portion of capacity as well). Blocks other than Reactor Containment Shields in the walls of a reactor do not impose a generation penalty, except empty blocks, which impose the same penalty as the Reactor Containment Shields (100 per empty block, to prevent the loss of containment from improving your reactor).

Spoiler: Shielded Reactor

A completed reactor with all available walls comprised of Reactor Containment Shielding.

Reactor Sizing Limitations

Reactor size is paramount, relative to ship size. As I stated far above, the “maximum” size of a reactor is 1/8th of the sum of the dimensions of your ship. However, as has been discussed below in the thread, artificially inflating your dimensions with "whiskers" of blocks, or even a lone block a distance from your actual vessel, would allow you to mount a disproportionately large reactor. To mitigate this possibility somewhat, your reactor size is also limited by the BlockCount of your ship versus it's Volume. Specifcally, if your volume is more than 7/8ths empty, you are capped to the smaller of either your normal reactor size limit or the percentage of which your ship is filled. To mount a reactor for a given set of dimensions, your ship must be at a very minimum 12.5% "filled in" (though what it's filled in with hardly matters). For our example vessel, this means:

135 x 45 x 33 = 178,200
178,200 / 8 = 22,275

It must be comprised of an absolute minimum of 22,275 blocks to mount it's Dim-24 reactor.
At 22,274 blocks, the reactor size is capped to a Dim-12, and that decreases as you decrease the block count until you can only mount a 1x1x1 (the very smallest reactor a ship can mount without penalty).

Multiple Reactors

If you prefer, you can divide your reactor volume up in any way you like - you are not limited to a single reactor but can have multiples, as well as backups. Recall how the examples provided show a 7x6x6? That only uses up 19/24 available reactor limit, meaning there is another 5 points to play with. This means a secondary reactor could be mounted that is a 2x2x1, providing an addtional 10,500 e/s and 52,500 capacity to our vessel. However, since this reactor is separate, it does not benefit from the modifiers the other one gets from its core. This is to simplify the addition of secondary reactors and not cause a scenario where they are interdependent on each other.

As another example, that same Dim-24 could be divided into two equally sized reactors, each a Dim-12 (4x4x4 cube, for simplicity). This pair of reactors would provide a total of 168k and 840k generation and capacity (since every reactor receives a bonus equal to your maximum reactor size), but would each only have 8 internal core block spots with which to modify them. Compared to a single 8x8x8 reactor, the two smaller ones would generate and store more energy, baseline (e.g. with empty frames), but would be less effective than a fully modded out 8x8x8 could be - using a "General Reactor" layout as an example, the two 4x4x4's would produce and store 195k and 979k, respectively. The 8x8x8, conversely, produces and stores 227k and 1.1 million by itself.

In the event multiple reactors are installed, priority is given in the following order:

1. Largest reactor out of all available
2. Highest output
3. Highest capacity
4. Selected at random

With this ordering, if the primary is smaller than the cap for the vessel, the next reactor in priority order is added, without penalty, to the generation and capacity. This continues until the cap is met or exceeded. If the last (or only) active reactor exceeds the cap, that reactor's output and capacity are penalized by a cumulative 20% reduction for every point they go over before being added to the rest of the generation and capacity (this means going too far over the cap will result in a negative modifier). Reactors that aren't active are treated as backup reactors, which will be brought online and add their generation normally if another reactor is destroyed or damaged.

Other Ideas Related To This Proposal

Below are a few things that could be a part of this overhaul, but are not the main focus of the system itself; they are tertiary adjuncts to the primary idea of scaling reactors to ship size. These should be taken with a grain of salt, as they haven't been fully fleshed out to the same extent as the volumetric reactors themselves.

• Spoiler: Reactor Managment

  Reactors have to be manually/logically controlled. Allows a player to define which reactors are active in a given situation and adds a simple power system management aspect to the game, increasing depth. May require the creation of a "Reactor Computer" block to allow the more precise definition of reactors. However, without player input into the exact ordering (and for the sake of AI's), reactors should default to the already stated "default" priority ranking system.
• Spoiler: Dedicated System Reactors

  Reactors can have blocks other than the ones listed placed in their cores. Blocks such as Shield Rechargers. Shield Capacitors, Effect Modules, and Jump Modules add bonuses to their respective systems when enabled (would require Reactor Managment).
  
  For example, filling a 4x4x4 reactor with 2 Shield Rechargers (25%) could grant you 25% more shield recharge while that reactor is active. Filling it to 100% (8 blocks) would grant up to 50% more shield recharge. In either case, the reactor base output (and therefore base capacity) would be diminished by the percentage of which the core is composed of the Shield Rechargers, reducing output to 3/4 with 2 blocks and 0 with the core fully filled.
  
  In the case of effects, the reactor being active would add up to 1/3rd to 1/5th (depending on the exact effect and game balance) of the maximum of the effect (as if it were applied normally from a computer on your hotbar) scaling with the percentage of the core which was comprised of the effect modules - in the case of Ion, it would grant 20% with the core 100% filled. This bonus should stack multiplicatively with the normal iteration of the effect (1 - (1 - 0.6) x (1 - 0.2) = 0.68 or 68% total effectiveness) but on its own would provide the full 20% reduction to damage to shields. To prevent abuse of the system, only the largest bonus from all active reactors for each effect would apply (so if you had two Ion dedicated reactors active, you'd still only have 20%).
  
  This sort of addition to the system would allow you to have a much smaller footprint for your defensive effects, but also a commensurately lesser effectiveness than a true-and-proper effect system. As well, since these dedicated reactors, when active, would eat into your available reactor Dim, you'll have that much less power for systems (though the intention here is to use the smallest reactor you can get away with for these supplementary minor effects - a 3x3x3 reactor with 1 of the chosen modules in the center is all it'd require, technically, which would only reduce your available reactor Dim by 9 points).
• Spoiler: Core Ejection/Break-Away System

  A sort of addition/tweak to the docking system. A new rail block, the Break-Away Rail, would be required - this would function like a normal rail for the purpose of docking to it, but would forcibly eject (and ghost for several seconds) any entity docked to it when it receives a logic signal, rather than just undocking it. An entity docked to the Break-Away Rail is treated as if it were a part of the parent entity to for all intents and purposes, with the following two exceptions:
  
  

  1. The entity would still show up as a docked entity, if you have docked entities toggled on in your nav window - this is to allow the creation of target-able subsystems on a sort of voluntary basis.
  2. The entity ignores per-entity block limits such as those on Ship Cores and Faction Modules, at least for the purpose of being considered part of the entity it's docked to.

  
  With that in mind, it becomes possible to create the following things:
  
  

  • Ejectable reactor cores (a docked reactor would use the parent entities reactor limits).
  • Disposable "warp sleds" for small vessels.
  • More easily replaceable armor/decorative sections.
  • Simpler torpedo tubes, with potential automatic reloading.
  • Ejectable cargo pods.
  • Internal weapon system "loadouts" that could be swapped.
  • A ship that breaks up into multiple smaller ships at the press of a button, without sacrificing effectiveness as a single ship.
  • Voltron. 'Nuff said.
• Spoiler: Overload Mode

  A vessel can, temporarily, utilize all available reactor(s) on board. The time which this mode can be active is equal to either 60 seconds or your vessel's Dim in seconds, whichever is less. If this time limit expires, all reactors on board detonate, more than likely crippling or outright destroying the vessel. If overload mode is cancelled prematurely by the player, it it placed on a 300 second (5 minute) cooldown, and doesn't detonate your reactors. Additionally, it can't be utilized again until the ship is rebooted (even if the cooldown elapses). These two measures are to prevent a ship from simply popping into Overload on a whim, but rather to reserve it for critical "do or die" moments.

Conclusions

You may have, until this point, read this assuming that this is designed to replace the present incarnation of the power system while maintaining the status quo regarding building large flying bricks of systems. This is not the case. For this reason, I must include the following additional points:

• Larger numbers of reactor frames to define the cuboid in a comparative smaller space are, as a rule, better.
• Very small ships (dimension sum <=24) are limited to a single reactor block (6k/30k).
• Very large ships can support a proportionally larger reactor and are therefore much, much more powerful. Conversely, their reactor is a much, much larger target.
• A reactor blowout is intended to be devastating for a ship without a backup, and very damaging to one with.
• Decentralized power systems are smaller, harder to hit targets, but produce less power.
• Reactors can't be physically touching, or else they are counted as being a single reactor unit.
• Reactors will set each other off when they blow up.
• There is no "soft cap" under this system. Instead, ships define their own limitations.

To sum up, I'm not the best at math, or at building. I'm probably not even good by some standards. But I'm fairly confident in this suggestion being pretty top-notch. It's obviously not perfect, and most of the numbers were pulled out of my ass, chosen mostly for the ease with which they allow the math to be done. Obviously, numerical adjustments would be required - if you'd like to put in the effort to come up with a more "balanced" set of values, I am open to the suggestion. I look forwards to constructive feedback.

Edit: Corrected a minor derp. There are 60 blocks in a 7 x 6 x 6 frame, not 46, and 68 in a 7 x 7 x 7. Rest of the math depending on that has been fixed too.
Edit 2: I need to learn how to count. There are 20 blocks in a 3 x 3 x 3 frame. Math fixed on that too.
Edit 3: Misc sort of note: an Isanth-sized ship (25 x 11 x 31) could support a reactor volume of 6 - a 2 x 2 x 2, which would add 7,800 generation and a capacity of 128,000 (6.0%/second). It could additionally support 1x1x1 docked reactors providing 90 additional power each.
Edit 4: If you're curious what sort of reactor a given hull could support, drop your LWH in a message and I'll calculate it out for you. Might help to have more numbers in context.
Edit 5: Overhauled the formulas, plus a few other tweaks. Removed a few things, added some things.
Edit 6: Reordered a few things, further general edits.
Edit 7: Implemented a few new formulas and a few general fixes. Increased reactor size a little.
Edit 8: Added a section relating to other ideas tied into this proposal.

 

[Nickizzy]

Ignoring core ejection, I kindamaybeishskipedit, Let's go on a point scale.

Volumetric Reactors – What It Means, How They Work

great, really intuitive and pretty simple. I like it.

The Separation of Generation and Capacity

And

The Separation of Active and Passive

Really unnecessary because they already do that anyway, just confuses me.

The Imposition of Limits

Good, although it should be compound, so 20% of previous, 2 out wouldn't be only 60% efficency.

Reactor Containment Shield

Totally OP, really hurts on Alpha weapons and high pen weapons, promotes beams or CC arrays. Make RCSs have a certain high"reactor HP" like 1000, that only applied in that situation.

 

[Kimiro]

Ignoring core ejection, I kindamaybeishskipedit, Let's go on a point scale.

Core ejection was mostly just my sleep-deprived attempt at pandering to a certain audience. That said, it would be an interesting dynamic IMHO.

Edit: Remove the Break-Away system - for now.

great, really intuitive and pretty simple. I like it.

I'm glad.

Really unnecessary because they already do that anyway, just confuses me.

Yes and no. At present, all systems draw from your capacity, while your generation tops it up. Drawing less than your top-up amount of course tends to work smoothly, but in some circumstance (i.e. lag) the tick rate of the reactor can cause your capacity to dip below the point where your systems can be active, forcing them to shut off. By making them two distinct variables with certain systems drawing specifically from one or the other, you can avoid situations where firing your weapons causes your Ion effect to drop because you spent a half-second with less than the required power in your buffer (as a random example).

Edit: Removed both.

Good, although it should be compound, so 20% of previous, 2 out wouldn't be only 60% efficency.

Problem with compound is that it does sort of convolute the math required to understand it, though I do agree that linear may not be the best approach. The other issue with compounding is that it puts an upper limit on the size a reactor can be oversized before it simply ceases producing power entirely.

Edit: Changed to compound.

Totally OP, really hurts on Alpha weapons and high pen weapons, promotes beams or CC arrays. Make RCSs have a certain high"reactor HP" like 1000, that only applied in that situation.

As it typical with my ramblings, I drift in and out of coherence. In retrospect the RCS would require some tweaking, as it's presently stated it would grant a large reactor potentially thousands of "free hits" before failing (something I hadn't considered at the time of writing). I kind of wanted to avoid a "reactor HP/integrity" variable since a ship can have more than one reactor installed (but not active), which means each reactor cuboid would have to have its own pool to be tracked, which is a less than ideal scenario. Perhaps each shield block absorbs a share of the damage each other non-shield block in the reactor would take? Small reactors with less shields would be more vulnerable, while larger ones with more would still be vulnerable to high-alpha weapons (assuming they had 250 block HP and 25% armor, each one could absorb just over 300 total damage before failing). Since it would be distributed among the available blocks, the smallest reactor you can shield (a 3 x 3 1) would be able to survive a few hits from a smallish cannon while a larger one (5 x 5 x 5) would divide the damage between 54 available shields and so may take several hits to go critical.

Edit: Simpler version has been included in the OP.

 

[Spartan4845]

Primary Edit: I like this idea quite a bit, not really much to say pro or con since I have no ideas on power generation or how to make it better.

Still reading but I have this to say. But I will admit I like any power idea that is the follow, and will update this or another post when I finish reading.

1) Any idea that makes power more than just place a power block and go.

2) Any system that allows for the addition of some RP elements to a ship, although I will admit that the group that wants to have 100% fleshed out ships might be asking for too much.

3) I thank you for "Pandering" to the small group of which I'm one. But a system that allows for a overload that may or may not be catastrophic, and allow for ejection of a reactor or part or a reactor is something I'd love to see. Or at least the ability to dock just one reactor or a primary reactor that would allow for the same.

Quick Edit: I'm not against alternate ideas to those that Schema presented, and I thank everyone that brainstorms instead of reaching for pitchforks.

 

[Kimiro]

Still reading but I have this to say. But I will admit I like any power idea that is the follow, and will update this or another post when I finish reading.

I await your update. :D

1) Any idea that makes power more than just place a power block and go.

I hope it strikes a balance between ease of use and potential, err, power. Something which rewards creative or thoughtful design without punishing "bad" designs too much.

2) Any system that allows for the addition of some RP elements to a ship, although I will admit that the group that wants to have 100% fleshed out ships might be asking for too much.

Well, if the 40% of your ship that was dedicated to power systems was suddenly freed up you'd have a lot more room for bunk houses and bathrooms.

3) I thank you for "Pandering" to the small group of which I'm one. But a system that allows for a overload that may or may not be catastrophic, and allow for ejection of a reactor or part or a reactor is something I'd love to see. Or at least the ability to dock just one reactor or a primary reactor that would allow for the same.

I did actually remove the "pandering" until I can work out its exact details a tiny bit more. That said, this may interest you (math and formulas are out of date):

Spoiler: Originally Part of the OP

But what can you do if your core gets breached...?

EJECT THE WARP CORE!

Yep. I'm including this in this suggestion. But it's far more than just a cliché system for roleplaying – it's something that may well become imperative to good ship design in the future. I am speaking of what may be the simplest, yet most intricate, implementation of a docked reactor that you've ever read, but there are a few caveats that I feel balance the potential power of this system. To wit:

Two new blocks are required: Break-Away Point and Break-Away Core.

• The Break-Away Point is, in essence, a regular plain old rail (it comes in three varieties; Fixed and two Rotator variants) with a few notable differences: Regular dockers can't dock to it, it doesn't automatically “convey” like rails do, and sending it a logic signal detonates the block and forcible ejects the attached entity (the entity is temporarily ghosted and given 25% of the server max speed as velocity away from the Break-Away Point). The other, probably far more important difference, is that an entity attached to a Break-Away Point is treated as if it is part of the parent entity; it feeds power down (see below for the limitation on this) instead of soaking it up, any systems installed on the docked entity can be accessed on the mothership, and is treated as if it were part of the parent entity for the purpose of shields, targeting etc. The last major different between Break-Away Points and regular rails is that they are limited to exactly 1 chain depth; no creating a column of power reactors.

• The second block is the Break-Away Core. It is in essence a ship core and a rail docker combined into a single block. This core is the only block that can dock to a Break-Away Point. It also forms the basis for break-away entities. There is nothing exceedingly special about this block beyond its requirement for building a break-away entity for your ship, though it is more fragile than a typical core to aid in “disposal”. That said, it has the same limit on block placement as a normal ship, which a couple additions: No variety of rail or rail docker may be placed on it - including Break-Away Points.

Now you may be thinking “So I can just build a series of docked reactors to overcome the one reactor limit?”. The answer to that is yes and no. Yes, in that you can have multiple reactors this way, but no in that it's not so straight forward. Specifically, an entity attached to a Break-Away Point is treated as if it were part of the parent entity. This means that if it contains a reactor, and the parent doesn't (or contains a smaller one), then the docked reactor is your one reactor.

However, if the docked reactor is exactly half of the standard maximum of the parent vessel (or smaller) it can contribute 10% of its output to your active generation. For our example ship, mentioned earlier, half of 19 (our limit) is 9 (round off, always), meaning it could support a 3 x 3 x 3 reactor. A 3³ reactor has a base output of 19,700 (20,685 with a Parallel reactor, -600 if you fill all six sides with Reactor Containment Shields), so our little docked reactor would contribute a measly 1,970 energy to our generation total (or an extra 98.5 if you put a Parallel Reactor in the 1 available space, and -60 with the shields). This of course means docked reactors are, in essence, horribly inefficient, but the utility of having a handful to boost your power output may outweigh the cost in some situations. As well, these docked reactors are still volatile as all hell and so need to be protected, lest they get blown up.

The utility of these two blocks is of course somewhat more than just overcoming some arbitrary power limitation. Things such as disposable warp sleds and thruster pods become possible, as well as staging, escape pods, or even right proper arrays of torpedoes. Imagination is the limiter in this instance.

Quick Edit: I'm not against alternate ideas to those that Schema presented, and I thank everyone that brainstorms instead of reaching for pitchforks.

Throw enough spaghetti at the wall and eventually you'll know when it's done. :P

 

[Spartan4845]

May I suggest to combat the over use of docked reactors that the "reactor dock" be limited to one(1) per ships similar to a core and set to drain power from what ever is docked instead of supplying it? So that the reactor can use a regular docking modular.

This allows you to build a large reactor that while having a great target/danger to reward output that also allows to get it ejected from a ship if people want to.

Then people could have a couple smaller reactors that, while not putting out mass amount of energy, could allow them to limp home/survive.
[doublepost=1487054360,1487053549][/doublepost]A rehash of my previous idea since my meds have me foggy. I have no idea if this seems any clearer.

Instead of multiple new systems with the power revision to allow for ejecting a core, why not add a single new dock?

Idea: Reactor Dock

This dock allows use of standard docking blocks, rails, and shootout/pickup rails.

The primary difference from the standard dock is that this block would drain power from an entity chain instead of supplying it. This allows for any rotators and other RP additions to be added on after the dock while keeping a reactor functional.

In addition a ship could be limited to a single "reactor dock" to combat multiple reactors similar to the docked batteries of old. It might also be a good idea to some how block the docking of entities that have docked reactors to avoid bypassing the system.

This would allow for high output and volatile reactors that could be ejected from a ship or moved into one of many creative or tactical solutions.

Of course smaller reactors would be needed to allow a ship to limp home or attempt to escape combat. But these smaller reactors would have to be installed on a ship instead of being docked.

 

[Macheiron]

I would like to start by saying that I REALLY like this idea. Numbers might need adjustment but it's solid.

That said....

On larger vessels, proportionally larger "small" reactors could be problematic for balance.

This is actually very unlikely, considering multiple smaller reactors can never match one large reactor even without artificial penalties.
I may be making assumptions about how you would define the size limits on these smaller reactors, though.

If we take pure block count potential for the frames and use your 7x6x6 example with 60 blocks in the frame we could have 3 reactors with 20 blocks in the frame that measure 3x3x3. Already we have a small loss in base power output since each reactor group would apply it's own dimension penalty.
For a single 7x6x6 (60 blocks) we get your cited 59,300 power. For three 3x3x3 (3x20 blocks) we get 59,100 power.

If we take frame dimensions things are far more punishing. We can get a 4x3x3 and a 3x3x3 for the same dimensions and get a total of 43,300 (23,600 + 19,700).

I can't actually think of any other ways to look at the split, but basically, there's no need to penalize multiple reactors, they're punishing enough on base power, and I haven't even gotten into the reactor filler blocks.

I would also consider adjusting the formula for the bonuses to be [ x(1 + y)^0.04 ] where {x=base output} and {y=number of filler blocks}. It's a very small tweak that makes the extra block in the middle of a dim-9 3x3x3 actually matter [19,700 vs 20253.8 using reactor frame].

 

[Kimiro]

I would like to start by saying that I REALLY like this idea. Numbers might need adjustment but it's solid.

Well, that's what the thread is for. Glad you like the idea though. Maybe it can get enough momentum to be seriously considered. :D

This is actually very unlikely, considering multiple smaller reactors can never match one large reactor even without artificial penalties.

That... Is an excellent point. I think my mind was still stuck on an earlier, more linear version of the system when I considered the ramifications of multiple reactors. I'll do some editing to clear that out.

I may be making assumptions about how you would define the size limits on these smaller reactors, though.

If we take pure block count potential for the frames and use your 7x6x6 example with 60 blocks in the frame we could have 3 reactors with 20 blocks in the frame that measure 3x3x3. Already we have a small loss in base power output since each reactor group would apply it's own dimension penalty.
For a single 7x6x6 (60 blocks) we get your cited 59,300 power. For three 3x3x3 (3x20 blocks) we get 59,100 power.

If we take frame dimensions things are far more punishing. We can get a 4x3x3 and a 3x3x3 for the same dimensions and get a total of 43,300 (23,600 + 19,700).

I can't actually think of any other ways to look at the split, but basically, there's no need to penalize multiple reactors, they're punishing enough on base power, and I haven't even gotten into the reactor filler blocks.

The intention is for them to be bounded by the frame dimensions, yeah. One of the quirks of this means a 1³ reactor (a single reactor frame block) is technically a Dim-3 reactor (it's 1+1+1 after all). So our 7 x 6 x 6 could also be four 1³ (12/19) and a single 2x2x1 (5/19) for (4 x 900 + 3,800) 7,400 power total. This is of course grievously inefficient, even compared to a 17x1x1 which provides 15,300.

I suppose if reactors provided their output from largest to smallest Dim-size, then you would intrinsically have the most efficient use of the available reactors up to your vessels cap. Smaller reactors beyond that would still serve as backups, though.

Which I think would mean that if our example vessel had two 4x3x3's, the second one would suffer a 20% penalty for being beyond the cap - 23,600 + (0.8 x 23,600) = 42,480, which is only marginally less effective than a 4x3x3 and a 3x3x3. So yeah, gonna tweak that in the OP.

I would also consider adjusting the formula for the bonuses to be [ x(1 + y)^0.04 ] where {x=base output} and {y=number of filler blocks}. It's a very small tweak that makes the extra block in the middle of a dim-9 3x3x3 actually matter [19,700 vs 20253.8 using reactor frame].

I'll plug that into my little spreadsheet I whipped up and get back to you. It would be a pretty minor tweak, I think, but I'd like to be sure before committing to redoing my math again. :P

Addendum: I chucked that tweak into the spreadsheet with some Statistically Unbiased Random Sample Vessel Dimensions™ and I gotta say, yeah. The difference is pretty inconsequential, but not to the point were I wouldn't include it. Just enough to make a 3x3x3 at least worth building on the appropriate sized vessel, as opposed to a 2x2x2 reactor and a 1x1x1 (though those would win out for durability/redundancy).

 

[Raisinbat]

A volumetric reactor is a reactor where the output is proportioned to its size relative to the dimensions of the vessel on which it's installed, at a 1:10 ratio. To simplify building, the “ideal” ratio is based on a single numerical comparison: The sum of the dimensions of the vessel versus the sum of the dimensions of the reactor. To wit: A vessel with dimensions L: 120, W: 45 and H:33 (our prototypical "example vessel") has a dimensional value of 198. At a 10 to 1 ratio, the maximum reactor size this vessel could support is 19 (always round off). This means any reactor in the following list of ranges is a valid candidate: 17 x 1 x 1, 16 x 2 x 1, 15 x 2 x 2, 9 x 5 x 5, 7 x 6 x 6 or any combination of three positive numbers that add up to 19 (or less).

Vessel power capacity is simply (5 x the reactor output) + 50,000 (from the core). Our example reactor above would have a capacity of 346,500, and a baseline ratio of 17.11% capacity recharged per second.

From these two things this is a bad suggestion, it's doing exactly what schine's proposal are doing wrong.

You decided what the outcome was going to be, then tailored the system to that outcome. A good system allows players to shoot for different outcomes and provides mechanics that prevent exploitation and rewards optimization. There are no different power designs available through this, it's just tying power generation and capacity to ship size with no customization.

The limitations wont work either because you can fit all the generators you want with docked entities, or just extend dimensionality by adding sticks to your ship...

 

[Kimiro]

From these two things this is a bad suggestion, it's doing exactly what schine's proposal are doing wrong.

And you would correct this how?
I appreciate that you take the time to state your reasoning, at least.

You decided what the outcome was going to be, then tailored the system to that outcome. A good system allows players to shoot for different outcomes and provides mechanics that prevent exploitation and rewards optimization. There are no different power designs available through this, it's just tying power generation and capacity to ship size with no customization.

What I was aiming for, actually, was an intuitive system (something which could be conveyed with a couple lines of text in the advanced build mode information panel and a short tutorial) that doesn't required stuffing every nook and cranny with power systems according to Arcane Bullcrap™ to hopefully achieve something bordering on usability.

Customization and complexity scale with vessel size, though - and, in my opinion, far better than presently exists. Yes, there is an ostensible "best" reactor design (at least in terms of shape) that fits in every vessel, but there always is. With the system as it's presently proposed, however, the differences between "best" and "next best" are less pronounced while still keeping a potential "worst". For example, the reasoning behind the small penalty based on the largest reactor dimension is to encourage more compact, centralized building while not overly penalizing going beyond those boundaries. Yes, this means a "power cube" is the most efficient generator under this system, but the difference between a 5x5x5 and a 7x5x3 aren't terribly dramatic - literally a difference of 200, baseline. Customization comes from combing out the last iota of power from your system, or tailoring it to run a custom set of defenses, or having enough juice to fire your HyperDeath DoomLaser of Doom™ - all achieved by altering the blocks inside the reactor itself, rather than gloaming out rows upon rows of reactors and capacitors, climbing every closer to an arbitrary cap.

The limitations wont work either because you can fit all the generators you want with docked entities, or just extend dimensionality by adding sticks to your ship...

Docked power doesn't work, and even if it did, with the system as proposed, it would only serve you as a backup power supply and wouldn't contribute anything unless your main reactor got blown up.
And sure, you could expand your dimensions by adding little fins or sticks jutting out. Why is that a bad thing? I guess someone could build a little cube with 1000m "whiskers" poking off in the cardinal directions to be able to mount a reactor that is much larger than they would otherwise be able to mount. which they could then use to fire off their GameBreaker Missile™. But so what? Barring any actual investment in armoring and protecting their ship, this hypothetical WhiskerCube™ is going to be rather flimsy with a reactor begging to get hit, especially since a cubic kilometer ship can mount a 100 cubic meter reactor - that's a million blocks of highly volatile, vulnerable systems an inconsequential amount of shields away from being oh so many fragments of debris. Moreover, that's a million blocks.
I realize I'm sort of descending into ad absurdium here, but with the system as stated those are the sort of commitments involved - 10 meters of extra dimension nets you 1 additional increase to your reactor size, and with the way it's set up, to double your power output you have to double your volume. For a ship to be dangerous, thought has to be put into it beyond "just make it as big as possible and stick some guns in there".

So yeah. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Zerefette]

I don't like it because it promotes doom boxes and it looks ugly, also less complex than both the old and new reactor system.

 

[Nickizzy]

Yes and no. At present, all systems draw from your capacity, while your generation tops it up. Drawing less than your top-up amount of course tends to work smoothly, but in some circumstance (i.e. lag) the tick rate of the reactor can cause your capacity to dip below the point where your systems can be active, forcing them to shut off. By making them two distinct variables with certain systems drawing specifically from one or the other, you can avoid situations where firing your weapons causes your Ion effect to drop because you spent a half-second with less than the required power in your buffer (as a random example).

Okay. Just that regen can become negative, so passive can drain on regular capacity and not just fail. So high-pool croakers still work.

I don't like it because it promotes doom boxes and it looks ugly, also less complex than both the old and new reactor system.

The limitations wont work either because you can fit all the generators you want with docked entities, or just extend dimensionality by adding sticks to your ship...

Two points;
1- I can sneak up with my cloaked porker and murder your power systems by shaving the whiskers off. Then jump in with my EMP interdicting frigate and pull-beam you off somewhere where I can board your disabled ship and take it in peace.

2- Same thing with DoomCubes. Banned by servers.

About docking, I don't know what you mean. Is it self powered turrets? Or the weird ship-in-ship-in-ship thing?

 

[Raisinbat]

the weird ship-in-ship-in-ship thing.

 

[Kimiro]

I don't like it because it promotes doom boxes and it looks ugly, also less complex than both the old and new reactor system.

It no more promotes doom boxes than the present power system. Ship dimensions only matter as a sum, so a 50x50x50 cube o' doom and a 101x14x35 incredibly detailed light frigate with full interior can support the same reactor (meaning with this system, an RP vessel can actually not be glaringly weaker in the name of looks). If anything it promotes more creative design by limiting the volume required to be dedicated to power.

You say it lacks complexity, I say it has an intuitive elegance. Plus there is an entire level of complexity in deciding what your reactor core will be comprised of (it doesn't have to be all one block type as pictured), meaning that even two ships with the same reactor core size can be set up to perform vastly different roles based on regen versus capacity. Yes, you don't have much choice on small shuttles and whatnot since they're limited to very small reactors (1x1x1, 2x1x1, 2x2x1, 2x2x2, 3x2x2, 3x3x2*), and while this limits them to between 900/54,500 for a Dim-30 or smaller and 17,700/138,500 for a Dim-80 to 89, I have to ask what is the issue? Small ships are already constrained by small size at present, this change would mean that they don't have to get bigger to have an appropriate amount of power installed. And while "appropriate amount of power" may be entirely subjective, I say its better than a singular cap. Plus you can go over the reactor size limit at smaller levels, since the penalty is comparitively less than the benefit a larger reactor gives - a 2x2x2 provides 7,800/89000 base. Sticking it on a Dim-30 (three levels oversized) vessel still lets you come out slightly ahead of the base reactor in terms of regen at 3,120/35,600.

Lastly, ship complexity is naturally a function of size. Bigger ships are able to support more blocks intrinsically (every volume doubling increases the number of blocks in the volume 8x), meaning more options are available to them. I would actually say that believing this system, as stated, lacks complexity is more of a reflection of a lack of creativity or imagination.

*A 3x3x2 reactor can support 2 Reactor Containment Shields, making it the first reactor where some level of customization is possible, however small.

Okay. Just that regen can become negative, so passive can drain on regular capacity and not just fail. So high-pool croakers still work.

Yeah, I scrapped the systems splitting portion. Regen and capacity would function more or less as they do now.

Two points;
1- I can sneak up with my cloaked porker and murder your power systems by shaving the whiskers off. Then jump in with my EMP interdicting frigate and pull-beam you off somewhere where I can board your disabled ship and take it in peace.

WhiskerCube gets a haircut then gets dragged to a gang fight. xD

Addendum: I feel it is necessary to mention that you would have to shave off a fair bit of the whiskers (at least 50 blocks) to completely neuter the power regen. It does occur to me, however, that a door or forcefield block would still contribute dimensions while toggled off, so there is the possibility of undamagable whiskers with that.

I don't think having them not contribute to vessel dimensions while open is possible unfortunately, but at the same time I wouldn't want to punish someone for building a larger vessel by factoring in block count (or god forbid mass). I also wouldn't want to punish decorative features that extend beyond the form of the hull, either (like a legitimate decorative antenna or fin).

Imma see if I can come up with something to remedy this, but I welcome suggestions.

2- Same thing with DoomCubes. Banned by servers.?

I've never actually been on a server that explicitly banned DoomCubes, but I've also never been on a server where they were an issue, either. Is this just a theorycrafting concern or are people actually building them?

 

[Zerefette]

It no more promotes doom boxes than the present power system.

But still it does, I prefer the one proposed by schema because it gets doom boxes out compared to the old and the one you're suggesting.
And while yes it's easy to understand it also has nothing specialized to it, just calc how much you need and then you require no expertise or technique when building it.
In the end it'll look like this.

 

[Kimiro]

But still it does, I prefer the one proposed by schema because it gets doom boxes out compared to the old and the one you're suggesting.
And while yes it's easy to understand it also has nothing specialized to it, just calc how much you need and then you require no expertise or technique when building it.
In the end it'll look like this.

Sigh.
No matter what you do to a voxel based building game, that is going to be a possibility. The very fact the game is based off of cubes makes that an option no matter what you do under the hood. Yes, under the proposal by Schema, you'd be penalized for overlapping the zones, but then people would just be encouraged to build larger cubes, or the "chandelier" layout that was brought up in that thread (which is worse IMHO because it's both uglier and a smaller target cross section overall). Saying "but it allows DoomCubes™" is essentially the same argument as saying "it lets you build whatever you want".

But I gotta ask: Have you considered that you could build up a hull, then determine the reactor that best fits it? That a vessel could be designed to look a certain way without having to worry about configuring the power system by some Arcane Bullcrap™ requiring either huge volumes of reactors and capacitors stuffed into the walls in poorly explained ways (present) or exhaustively laying out systems so arbitrary exclusionary zones don't overlap (proposal by Schema)? Yes, the system is simple, straight forward even, but that isn't a terrible thing. More options are available if you aren't constrained by the arbitrary requirements of your power system.

As well, I honestly get the sense that there is a group of you out there that oppose simplification of the power system simply because you're so ingrained into this idea that you have to be some sort of highly skilled "wizard" to be good at the game, that being able to build efficiently is some sort of DeepMagic™ that entitles you to look down on others, and that "muggles" who can't are entitled whiners who just don't want to git gud.

Lastly, complexity doesn't necessarily equate to depth of system. The two concepts are, of course, related, but differ severely. A system can be exceedingly complex (such as the old requirement to manufacture every single block shape) while adding no additional depth. Conversely, a system can be exceedingly simple (such as placing blocks, as a general example) while having tremendous depth (such as which block goes where, how it faces, and even what it's purpose it). Just because a reactor is condensed to a finite, easily calculable subset doesn't automatically make it shallow - you have the choice of placing multiple reactors to serve as backups, or building larger reactors than the vessel would normally have to eek out a small amount of extra power, or dividing your potential reactor volume into numerous small reactors to avert catastrophe in the event of losing one. There is an ostensible "best reactor", yes - the one that provides the greatest output and capacity to your vessel. But simultaneously, that "best reactor" may not suit your intended layout, or may be too large a target, or simply might not provide you with the desired ratio of output to capacity, or might just simply too large to reasonably build.

 

[Nickizzy]

WhiskerCube gets a haircut then gets dragged to a gang fight. xD

This will be my new signature.

As for preventing WhiskyCubes V winglets,
...
Hm...
How bout...
It depends on what you define as whiskers. Are the 3/3 slope winglets whiskers? Are the anntennas? Are the octupuseses? Maybe it's the farthest placed system block, +1% or something. But then people would place one shield block really far out.. And armor wouldn't work.

More thinking required.

 

[Kimiro]

This will be my new signature.

Okiedokie. xD

As for preventing WhiskyCubes V winglets,
...
Hm...
How bout...
It depends on what you define as whiskers. Are the 3/3 slope winglets whiskers? Are the anntennas? Are the octupuseses? Maybe it's the farthest placed system block, +1% or something. But then people would place one shield block really far out.. And armor wouldn't work.

More thinking required.

That's the thing - it's a tricky question. One mans decorative antenna is another mans exploit attempt.
I suppose there could be a volumetric threshold, some point at which increasing your dimensions relative to your block count doesn't increase your reactor cap. But that has it's own problems: Too low and you risk punishing someone for having empty space on their ship, too high and it may be able to be abused too easily, or worked around.

Plus that sort of goes against the ideal situation of your reactor being independent of mass/block count (the issue I have with using block count to determine reactor limits is that reactors add to the block count - you can end up in a scenario where a reactor's size directly improves its limits).

It will take some thought. If anyone needs me I'll be in the chamber of understanding.

 

[Nickizzy]

New Idea- Called Volume Percentage System or VPS.

Reactor ship dimensions are based on the planes(Geomitry Plane) in each dimension when x(90-99.9 or whatever)% of he ship's mass(MPS), or the ship's volume(VPS), is on one side of the plane. This applies in all directions. The distance between the planes of each axis added together is the "ship size" and is what reactor size is based off of.
[doublepost=1487121736,1487121670][/doublepost]

It will take some thought. If anyone needs me I'll be in the chamber of understanding.

Come! Understand!

 

[Kimiro]

New Idea- Called Volume Percentage System or VPS.

Reactor ship dimensions are based on the planes(Geomitry Plane) in each dimension when x(90-99.9 or whatever)% of he ship's mass(MPS), or the ship's volume(VPS), is on one side of the plane. This applies in all directions. The distance between the planes of each axis added together is the "ship size" and is what reactor size is based off of.

Interesting proposal but... I'm going to run some number and see what I can come up with.

Come! Understand!