Weapon Immunity for Stabilizer Stream Nodes

[lupoCani]

Second in my list of minor corrections and fixes for power 2.0 is the survivability of nodes.

The streams are, in themselves, vulnerable. This is compounded by the fact that nodes can be destroyed. Routing the streams is a volatile process, destroying a single node can easily make a stream pass long distances outside of the ship. As far as vulnerability goes, this is, in my opinion, a little extreme.

I see two options for correcting this. One, make nodes intangible like pickup rails and area detectors. Two, make streams not recalculate themselves when nodes are removed due to weapons fire.

 

[Valiant70]

The agree button is missing. A like will have to do for now.

 

[dwwojcik]

I like the second option.

 

[God mode]

Both of these options allow for the stream to be entirely hidden inside the reactor using large stabilizers at each end of the ship, joined into a single group by a 'dotted line' of stabilizers between them which moves the center of mass inside the reactor.

There are no downsides to this method aside from slightly reduced efficiency and lower stabilizer integrity.

 

[mystery4000]

I totally agree

 

[Valiant70]

Both of these options allow for the stream to be entirely hidden inside the reactor using large stabilizers at each end of the ship, joined into a single group by a 'dotted line' of stabilizers between them which moves the center of mass inside the reactor.

There are no downsides to this method aside from slightly reduced efficiency and lower stabilizer integrity.

I always thought combining stabilizers that way was a little strange, and people have complained about it messing up ships with forked tails. This might be a good reason to remove that group-merging nonsense entirely. I highly doubt it would cause any imbalance to allow a number of small stabilizers. I'm not sure how a bunch of little ones would be treated by the new multi-directional stabilizer system but if it causes problems it just points to something that needed tweaking anyway.

 

[lupoCani]

[...]

This is already the case, isn't it? Granted, this proposal doesn't address the problem, but as far as I can tell it's only tangentially related.

 

[God mode]

I always thought combining stabilizers that way was a little strange, and people have complained about it messing up ships with forked tails. This might be a good reason to remove that group-merging nonsense entirely. I highly doubt it would cause any imbalance to allow a number of small stabilizers. I'm not sure how a bunch of little ones would be treated by the new multi-directional stabilizer system but if it causes problems it just points to something that needed tweaking anyway.

A solid connection is still possible with large enough stabilizer groups, so removing the group merging behavior wouldn't help much.

This is already the case, isn't it? Granted, this proposal doesn't address the problem, but as far as I can tell it's only tangentially related.

Currently, when any of the connecting stabilizer blocks are destroyed, the stabilizer group is split and exposed streams are created. If you made stream nodes invulnerable, it would make sense to disable this behavior as well, since it results in the same problems.

 

[lupoCani]

Good point, but I think there's a way to solve this. Damage can cause stabilizers to split into different groups, but cannot change what nodes they connect to.

That way, we avoid most annoying rerouting, but anything like you propose would sill be vulnerable to splitting.

 

[NTIMESc]

I would like to see the streams modeled/textured like a solid conduit, that is routed by hand with a minimum of one node touching the reactor, and one touching each stabilizer group. Routing should be automatic to the nearest nodes in the direction of each stabilizer bank. Streams could split from and combine into nodes automatically as necessary for shortest travel to the next node(s). Any stabilizer group not touching a node is inactive, whether by builder error or damage. Nodes would be indestructible and non-solid, but still vulnerable to weapons fire like the streams. Finally, building stabilizer banks around a node would likely be advantageous in lessening the chance that the entire bank is disabled when taking damage.

Streams using multiple segments/branches could optionally be separately disabled (thus disabling their downstream stabilizer banks) when hit with weapon damage, although I imagine some consideration would be needed to avoid branch-mania.
(sorry, this turned into more of a separate suggestion)

A solid connection is still possible with large enough stabilizer groups, so removing the group merging behavior wouldn't help much.

Is the advantage that the stream itself is just a a tiny blob buried in the reactor? It seems like a valid strategy, although I imagine there are some drawbacks to extending thick stabilizer groups all the way to the reactor.
I really wish the stabilizers did something else, besides "stabilize", like transfer heat from the reactor to blocks in a radius around them. :/