What exactly are the penalities of low stabilization?

[Temeter]

So while I understand most of the mechanics, I'm actually a bit confused as to what penalties low stabilization brings. Couldn't really find a good answer on the spot, so here we go:

I've basically doubled my ships reactor size from ~999 to ~1999; now the stabilization dropped to 50% or so; but the energy recharge remained at 190k, and I had to remove stablizers to push the recharge below optimum. The chamber system also seemed to let me use 100% reactor capacity for addons.

So what is actually the penalty for having below <100% recharge?

 

[HerrColonel]

Your power gen is limited if you're <30% stabilisation

between 30 and 100% stabilisation there's no change

 

[YamiHikari]

Your power gen is limited if you're <30% stabilisation

between 30 and 100% stabilisation there's no change

Not true. Anything less than 100% stabilization increases the amount of damage you take from weapons (up to a limit). There is also the part about explosions at really low stabilization, but I don't know what point. Of course, you are right about the power penalty (although the default, I believe, is 25%).

 

[HerrColonel]

Not true. Anything less than 100% stabilization increases the amount of damage you take from weapons (up to a limit). There is also the part about explosions at really low stabilization, but I don't know what point. Of course, you are right about the power penalty (although the default, I believe, is 25%).

My bad. Any link about this mechanic?

 

[YamiHikari]

My bad. Any link about this mechanic?

Coming right up:
StarMade News - StarMade v0.200.311 - Power 2.0
Most of the information is under Power <==> Stabilizer in the Power Basics section.

There also seems to be no mention of explosions in this, so I guess I got that part wrong.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Explosions were originally discussed as a consequence of low stability, but that mechanic was offset into the integrity system instead. Reactors receive up to 3x damage at zero stability vs 100% and I believe it is a linear function. At 25% stability you get maximum regen.

 

[Temeter]

So it's become a straightup damage penalty. Thanks a lot, that's basically all I wanted to know! :D

 

[Scypio]

There is more to that than just damage penalty. Well at least there was. I don't have any internet to update the game and take a look at the configs to check.

But on previous versions your reactor started to take damage on lower than 50% stabilization. There is also others things but well i'm not gonna explain without verifying at least in the config first. Keep in mind that it is intended to work at 100% stabilization and not lower. Except if you know exatly what you're doing.

 

[Temeter]

There is more to that than just damage penalty. Well at least there was. I don't have any internet to update the game and take a look at the configs to check.

But on previous versions your reactor started to take damage on lower than 50% stabilization. There is also others things but well i'm not gonna explain without verifying at least in the config first. Keep in mind that it is intended to work at 100% stabilization and not lower. Except if you know exatly what you're doing.

I did play around a bit before making this thread, and I wondered if there was some additional reactor damage. It's hard to see just by itself.

Current plan is to stay on 100+% (my ship is fun RP stuff either way).

It's definitly an interesting quirk. Could benefit small non-combat shuttles, or support the idea of having long range, warp-capable carrier ships.

 

[JinM]

It's definitly an interesting quirk. Could benefit small non-combat shuttles, or support the idea of having long range, warp-capable carrier ships.

Actually all my small miners and fighters below 20m lenght have only around 30 to 50% stabilization. And with the small ships on servers no one really targets you anyway. Often enough turrets and ships aren't even able to hit such small ships at all.

 

[jstenholt]

Hold up there, the damage penalty only effects reactors, if I recall correctly.

 

[Qweesdy]

The stabilisation needed to get "max. power" from a reactor has changed again (it's not ">= 30% stabilisation" anymore). Now can be as low as 20% (stabilisers on all sides) and as high as 100% (stabilisers on one side only).

For actual info; see StarMade News - StarMade v0.200.332 - Reactor System Enhancement and Fixes

 

[NTIMESc]

Now can be as low as 20% (stabilisers on all sides) and as high as 100% (stabilisers on one side only).

That is 20% of the distance for a stabilizer to be 100%efficient. Reactor stabilization still has to be at 25% or higher to get maximum regeneration.

 

[Nosajimiki]

More specifically, you can get 100% stabilization range efficiency with a 20% of the distance if you build in all 6 directions, but you get full power efficiency if your total stability is at 25%.

 

[Qweesdy]

That is 20% of the distance for a stabilizer to be 100%efficient. Reactor stabilization still has to be at 25% or higher to get maximum regeneration.

More specifically, you can get 100% stabilization range efficiency with a 20% of the distance if you build in all 6 directions, but you get full power efficiency if your total stability is at 25%.

That sounds a whole lot more useful!

To double check....

If I have a "class 37" reactor with 199999 reactor blocks; if I only used one side then I could have:

• 199999 stabilisers at a distance of 1186.7 meters for 100% stabilisation
• 50000 stabilisers at a distance of 1186.7 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 199999 stabilisers at a distance of 297 meters for 25% stabilisation

...and if I used 5 sides (22% reduction), then I could have:

• 5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 262 meters for 100% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 10000 stabilisers each at a distance of 262 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 400000 stabilisers each at a distance of 6.55 meters for 25% stabilisation
  
• 10 groups of 20000 stabilisers (in pairs - 2 on left side, 2 on right side, etc) each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation

..and all of these would get the full 19999900 e/sec power generation. Does that sound right?

Note: I tried something like the last option, just with slightly more distance between stabilisers, slightly more stabilisers, and small differences in the distances between reactor and different groups of stabilisers; and ended up with "relatively expected results" (26.6% stabilisation and full 19999900 e/sec power generation). I think I just need to do some tuning to improve the "equally big groups bonus" (so I can reduce the number of stabilisers and still get > 25% stabilisation).

 

[Nosajimiki]

That sounds a whole lot more useful!

To double check....

If I have a "class 37" reactor with 199999 reactor blocks; if I only used one side then I could have:

• 199999 stabilisers at a distance of 1186.7 meters for 100% stabilisation
• 50000 stabilisers at a distance of 1186.7 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 199999 stabilisers at a distance of 297 meters for 25% stabilisation

...and if I used 5 sides (22% reduction), then I could have:

• 5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 262 meters for 100% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 10000 stabilisers each at a distance of 262 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 400000 stabilisers each at a distance of 6.55 meters for 25% stabilisation
  
• 10 groups of 20000 stabilisers (in pairs - 2 on left side, 2 on right side, etc) each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation

..and all of these would get the full 19999900 e/sec power generation. Does that sound right?

Note: I tried something like the last option, just with slightly more distance between stabilisers, slightly more stabilisers, and small differences in the distances between reactor and different groups of stabilisers; and ended up with "relatively expected results" (26.6% stabilisation and full 19999900 e/sec power generation). I think I just need to do some tuning to improve the "equally big groups bonus" (so I can reduce the number of stabilisers and still get > 25% stabilisation).

Most of this is right, but I believe distance is a nonlinear relationship with a soft cap on min distance so "199999 stabilisers at a distance of 297 meters for 25% stabilisation" and "5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation, 5 groups of 400000 stabilisers each at a distance of 6.55 meters for 25% stabilisation, 10 groups of 20000 stabilisers (in pairs - 2 on left side, 2 on right side, etc) each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation" are probably not right.

Not 100% sure about the latest update, but in older releases, at 25% range your stabilization dropped to nearly zero effectiveness.

 

[YamiHikari]

Most of this is right, but I believe distance is a nonlinear relationship with a soft cap on min distance so "199999 stabilisers at a distance of 297 meters for 25% stabilisation" and "5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation, 5 groups of 400000 stabilisers each at a distance of 6.55 meters for 25% stabilisation, 10 groups of 20000 stabilisers (in pairs - 2 on left side, 2 on right side, etc) each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation" are probably not right.

Not 100% sure about the latest update, but in older releases, at 25% range your stabilization dropped to nearly zero effectiveness.

Actually, now that I think about it, I remember that Lancake mentioned something about making the distance nonlinear to prevent exploits of the system. There is a point where the function does look linear, but the ends become exponential. I'm including the visual he used to represent the difference. Blue is old, and red is new.
Also, shoutout to captain50000. Sorry about saying you were wrong. The distance was not increased, but instead the equation changed.

 

[captain50000]

Actually, now that I think about it, I remember that Lancake mentioned something about making the distance nonlinear to prevent exploits of the system. There is a point where the function does look linear, but the ends become exponential. I'm including the visual he used to represent the difference. Blue is old, and red is new.
Also, shoutout to captain50000. Sorry about saying you were wrong. The distance was not increased, but instead the equation changed.

and thats what seems like to kill my stabilization ggs

 

[YamiHikari]

and thats what seems like to kill my stabilization ggs

Glad that got figured out.

 

[captain50000]

Glad that got figured out.

u know yup from 1k min distance to 6k distance while keeping minimum power req for shield and stuff the same is idiotic if u make this increase this way u should also make the rest which consumes power decrease that why or my the curve growth slower if larger
[doublepost=1518364882,1518364810][/doublepost]

That sounds a whole lot more useful!

To double check....

If I have a "class 37" reactor with 199999 reactor blocks; if I only used one side then I could have:

• 199999 stabilisers at a distance of 1186.7 meters for 100% stabilisation
• 50000 stabilisers at a distance of 1186.7 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 199999 stabilisers at a distance of 297 meters for 25% stabilisation

...and if I used 5 sides (22% reduction), then I could have:

• 5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 262 meters for 100% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 10000 stabilisers each at a distance of 262 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 40000 stabilisers each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation
• 5 groups of 400000 stabilisers each at a distance of 6.55 meters for 25% stabilisation
  
• 10 groups of 20000 stabilisers (in pairs - 2 on left side, 2 on right side, etc) each at a distance of 65.5 meters for 25% stabilisation

..and all of these would get the full 19999900 e/sec power generation. Does that sound right?

Note: I tried something like the last option, just with slightly more distance between stabilisers, slightly more stabilisers, and small differences in the distances between reactor and different groups of stabilisers; and ended up with "relatively expected results" (26.6% stabilisation and full 19999900 e/sec power generation). I think I just need to do some tuning to improve the "equally big groups bonus" (so I can reduce the number of stabilisers and still get > 25% stabilisation).

the problem is this concept makes ur ship a square basically which is bullshit creativity limited