We have complexity in other areas. Power is no longer something for 'those in the know'. As in anything it helps to educate yourself but reactor design is not the end all be all of showing you know your stuff. Skill with weapons layouts, logic systems and intelligent use of AI npcs will begin to be those aspects of the game people will want to master. And for those who cannot.. having a good shipwright and being an excellent pilot might actually balance issues out. Now a faction will become a must-have for anyone who isn't a jack-of-all-trades and the few who are can still farm out tasks to people better at it than they.
A theoretical faction hierarchy:
Faction Leader
-faction staff
[Shipyard] Design and construct ships and ship/station support systems including turrets
-chief shipwright
--role architect
--aesthetics architect
--internal systems architect
--interiors designer
[Civil Engineering] Build stations, maintain ships, build internal ship/turret systems
-chief avionics engineer
--weapons techs
--engineers
--power engineers
--logic engineers
[Military] Find cool stuff and blow it up
-chief admiral
--chief staff
--combat pilots
--combat techs
--spaceborne marines
[Civilian] Labor and commerce
-union boss
--miners
--factory workers
--construction workers
--police/militia
But I've strayed off topic. Yes the power system is no longer so elitist.
You've not actually debunked anything because the game is going to change again. Count on it. A point made months ago wouldn't even be a sound argument now. And a lot of the arguments here, for and against, will get tossed right out the window on a schema-whim. Including mine.
I'm very confused why you believe that box dimension reactors were abusive. These "sweet spots" you were talking about- I think I would know about them, but they are probably much less "sweet" than you think they are, because I already developed the perfect box dimension bonus reactor design long ago, and even then it was only adding on 200,000+ or so energy compared to traditional long line reactors on regular people's ships before the system was changed. Several hundred thousand is not a very big gap, especially when you consider that the majority of server players already usually fly capital ships that have millions of regen, and that most small ships that would benefit most from those boxdim reactors do not have the room for the necessary sizes of them anyway.
The smallest space I was ever able to manage to fit a million power into was a 25x25x25 space, but that takes up way too much room even on most traditonally naval-shaped 100-meter frigates. And because it was crammed into such a relatively small space for a shipwide reactor, it was so complex that the slightest damage is be next to irreparable unless you know the design by heart, not to mention missiles to such a small area can easily kill that big regen feedback.
Power was never a thing that was "poor-functioning for anyone except the elite". It was never "elitist". Anyone with basic knowledge of the game could still easily build a decent power system for their ship just with long lines and traditional simple lineZ-lineY-lineX designs. Those "in the know" were only getting relatively small bonuses of regen to their reactors, and in the end, it gave them an edge without being ridiculously OP.
As in anything it helps to educate yourself but reactor design is not the end all be all of showing you know your stuff. Skill with weapons layouts, logic systems and intelligent use of AI npcs will begin to be those aspects of the game people will want to master.
Yes, indeed. I agree with you on this. I am good at other things as well aside from reactor designs, except for logic, the blasted system kills me to no end.
I just hope someday we will have a real crew element to our ships that doesnt require us to manually go to a special shop and one-by-one recruit NPCs and astronaut-walk back to the ship with them and manually give them each their jobs just for one rollabout in one ship, because that get very repetitive and annoying knowing how often ships get destroyed.
A theoretical faction hierarchy:
Faction Leader
-faction staff
[Shipyard] Design and construct ships and ship/station support systems including turrets
-chief shipwright
--role architect
--aesthetics architect
--internal systems architect
--interiors designer
[Civil Engineering] Build stations, maintain ships, build internal ship/turret systems
-chief avionics engineer
--weapons techs
--engineers
--power engineers
--logic engineers
[Military] Find cool stuff and blow it up
-chief admiral
--chief staff
--combat pilots
--combat techs
--spaceborne marines
[Civilian] Labor and commerce
-union boss
--miners
--factory workers
--construction workers
--police/militia
Funny, for my faction I already pretty much do every single one of these jobs by myself. I build all my large stations by myself. I build all my ships by myself. I collect all the resources by myself. I renovate all my old ships by myself. I've never had any problems with just doing this. It does take a while (several weeks of playing to complete the station in combination with gathering resources and killing enemy ships), but its fairly easy work. I'm just the variable laborer these days arent I xD
You've not actually debunked anything because the game is going to change again. Count on it. A point made months ago wouldn't even be a sound argument now. And a lot of the arguments here, for and against, will get tossed right out the window on a schema-whim. Including mine.
I disagree.
I've debunked the usefulness of a box dimension system vs a long lines system and shown that a box dimension system is naturally superior in most ways. Regardless of how the game changes, this is an irrefutable fact, and the year+ time period of the system being around is solid evidence of its usefulness and creative applications.
I've established that a long lines system is also much less creative and encourages uncreative and monotonous building of ship power systems, as well as hurting ship design variability.
I'm willing to give the long lines philosophy some time in the spotlight too and see how it goes, but mostly because i'm happy that it didn't majorly screw my ships boxdim reactor up. It still seems to be giving out plenty of power somehow.
Granted the calculations for box dimension were previously iffy in some spots, but overall it was very challenging to even get right, and when you did get it right, it still played fair against other reactor design types.
Also all of my arguments here are based off of how the game is now fyi. If I wanted to argue about the old state of the game I would make a nostalgia thread somewhere else rather than a suggestion thread.
I had a ship with a really complex box dimension reactor that produced a great amount of power in a relatively compact space, and now it's being outdone by reactors of just spammed long lines of power blocks!
What happened to skilled reactor building? Where's the ability to build a better ship rather than just building a bigger ship? I liked it when box dimension bonus actually mattered, because then players competed to see who could build the best reactor design and most easily power their ship, because believe me, it was a real challenge. Now any idiot who even barely knows how to play the game is able to build a ship just as good as me, and i've been honing my skills at reactor building for a year now. I'm disappointed...
This is all really about your disappointment. If you hate vanilla then don't play vanilla. It's not gonna stay that way long anyhow. It has to change. Try starting a poll and getting the dev team to see how many people really agree with you.
There hasn't been a unilaterally successful space sim game since Freespace2 which was inspired by the Wing-Commander series most of which were essentially reskinned WW2 dogfight sims. And besides Star-Made is less 'space sim' and more 'scifi inspired physics sandbox'.
I'm a big fan of wing commander, Privateer, and freespace. Glad you are/were too. Also the starseige series, Star Trek Online, and Various star wars games...EVE is aother one but I'm not a fan of it's "flight" and combat mechanics. There are a LOT of space games and physics sim games (see goat-simulator.) your claim is invalid, your argument is invalid.
Allow me to segue for a moment; One of the first ships I built was a faithful reproduction of the Herc2 from FS2. I filled in the correct width length and height while building around a full set of ship systems. By the time I was done it had just enough kick to kill an Isanth VI. I was happy with it. The game showed me how flexible is could be. By better optimization of the internal space I could drastically change the ship's behaviour if I had been so inclined. I think that rather evaporates your cookie-cutter admonition.
"One of the first"..."was" ..."was"...Seeing the pattern here? past tense.
To be clear: I am worried that "simplifying" systems will lead to a "simple" game. My worries are that as systems more and more switch to "linear block numbers, linear growth" as weapons have (remember when shape mattered?), and power now apparently has, and as engines have. At the risk of going on a slippery-slope fallacy; it's rapidly approacing the point of "put them anywhere it doesn't matter" for all systems. To quote Bill Nye; "This concerns me." It removes endgame in my opinion, and "simplicity" is synonymous with "cookie cutter" in my book.
If a server were to op-in for boxdim people who know 'this one weird trick server admins hate him for' would go right to that server and essentially run the place unless an admin intervened. No. It would be monumentally irresponsible for me to expose an exploit for the sake of "pics or it didn't happen". To bring in someone to explain it "for me" because I "evidently" lack the math skill for basic multiplication would also be rather inconsiderate. As I mentioned it is still a viable exploit and just as AndyP did not go into detail neither shall I.
...fair enough, though I will again point out Skiing from "Starseige Tribes" (another great space-flavor game series) being an exploit turned into a core mechanic because it was FUN and DIFFERENT. Also knife running/bunnyhopping from CS, and I'm sure a few other exploits-turned-features will come to my mind as the old neurons fire up.
This is not "pics or it didn't happen". That's you putting words in my mouth. This is a request for Lucid information. Which brings me to:
I also hope you are not questioning my lucidity. I may seem rather alacritous but I'll clarify for you that I am quite compunct. No mater the volume of my joviality I would be most distressed if information I divulged found its way into the hands of someone who would use it contemptuously.
I am indeed questioning you lucidity in relation to the topic. I think you may be using a non-standard definition for lucid. Let me link you to the one I am using. https://www.google.ca/#q=define:+lucid
#1. expressed clearly; easy to understand. "a lucid account"
You are being anything but clear, and are in fact acting in a manner best described by some of the antonyms of lucid: Vague, Obscure, and unclear.You have given your special pleading reasons for being non-lucid, that's fine, but you are committing another very annoying logical fallacy in your attempts to debate; suppressed evidence. Look it up.
However. If you really are so keen to understand then there are several reactor designs for download. Along side which are several youtube videos on the subject of reactor design and flaws. In essence; Google is your friend.
AFAIK I have a very good grasp on box dimensions, how they apply to reactors in starmade, and several power glitches that have been useable in the past(including one that gives a two-man ship infinite power regen regardless of it's actual shape). Some of my "better" designs approach(ed) 900e/sec/block without using special tactics. I'm curious, is that on par with what you consider an "exploit" ?
Unless you can an will talk about the subject of this thread in detail you are being unproductive. I am simply asking for you to share information if you have it, rather than say "oh there's a magical tablet only I can read, with this magical lens. It says this stuff, but take my word for it." When MOST people take this approach it's because they do not actually understand what they are talking about, but have it on good faith from another person of authority that some general description is in fact the case. If I am incorrect I apologize for a false assumption, but you are indeed throwing up quite a few "red flags" that lead me to this conclusion.
I apologize for any derailment this clarification and sussing has caused. please return to discussing the slippery slope of changes to the games systems and dynamics.
You hit the slippery slope. So don't worry. You're soaking in it. You gladly admit it on your ending. So no party foul.
I was being perfectly clear in that I'm not sharing. Some of us had to sign an NDA. End of line.
I agree we should return to the original topic. Which is Planr's disappoint.
On that subject:
In the OP there really is no suggestion at all. Even implied. So this whole topic has been unfruitful. And here I should be quite lucid and suggest a new topic be made specifically concerning recommendations or suggestions about the power system. Rather then concern ourselves with one starmate's temporary disillusionment.
This is likely my last entertainment of this thread, I mostly wanted to draw attention to my love of Privateer which happens to generate a bit of serendipity coinciding with your mention of the game. :3 Love me some bounty hunting. If you care to talk about Privateer more feel free to message me. I'd encourage it. I just love the game so much and talking shop would be a welcome distraction.
As in anything it helps to educate yourself but reactor design is not the end all be all of showing you know your stuff. Skill with weapons layouts, logic systems and intelligent use of AI npcs will begin to be those aspects of the game people will want to master.
To clear this up a bit.
The boxdim bonus did not get removed in total it got adjusted. (Sort of..)
This is by now 1 year and 2 months ago, since it was changed.
Will explain all details about it now:
Lets see this on an example reactor.
Its a 9x9 base, and 6 blocks high in terms of 'boxdim'.
Now the bonus is 27, while the other part of the formula is unchanged.
The reason to remove it was:
Reactors had to be cubic to get the max bonus.
Any 1*1*x dimension had an unrecoverable 'loss' you could never balance out.
This narrowed down possible ship designs, and encouraged 'borg-cubes'.
(Not actually, but at least your reactor had to have this shape somehow.)
You could gain a bonus from your sheer ship dimensions,
it was not intended that way.
Now ANY add to the total dimension has an equal bonus.
This in fact results in "poles" being the easiest to use reactors,
and also the same efficiency as playing 'snake' through your ship to maximize the box dimensions.
The softcap is nothing that can be discussed right here.
Its there for the sake of not spamming more and more power in the system.
As this destroys any need for good weapon design or shield balance.
But for this there are already workarounds,
like the docked supply reactor (aka Modular reactor).
And this has size vs. efficiency balanced as you personally design them.
I think few people argue against the softcap. That definitely needs to exist.
Good points. I wonder if there is a better way (adjacent disintegrator regen boosts!) other than cubic and snake-like boxdim bonus designs of the old system to make a more interesting engineering system for power.
But for this there are already workarounds,
like the docked supply reactor (aka Modular reactor).
And this has size vs. efficiency balanced as you personally design them.
Wait a minute, so you're telling me that dockable reactor batteries are intended as a feature and not a bug? If so, may I just say, that's awesome! I was afraid it was a bug dealing with beams being interactive between the mothership and its docked entities, and that the feature would be removed.
Thanks for clearing that up Andy. I feel better about the long line system now.
Depends on your layout there. I block out room for systems in larger ships which don't leave room for long beams of power. I do however end up with large blocks of space. Feel free to correct me but if the soft cap prevents additional bonus power from arrangement how would any formation be more efficient than any other after hitting that cap, or is my understanding just that far off?
Depends on your layout there. I block out room for systems in larger ships which don't leave room for long beams of power. I do however end up with large blocks of space. Feel free to correct me but if the soft cap prevents additional bonus power from arrangement how would any formation be more efficient than any other after hitting that cap, or is my understanding just that far off?
The soft cap only applies to the regeneration of the main ship's power generators; outside power coming in from, say, a modular reactor docked internally to the ship can give power to the ship only at the power transfer penalty between the powersupply beam
The soft cap only applies to the regeneration of the main ship's power generators; outside power coming in from, say, a modular reactor docked internally to the ship can give power to the ship only at the power transfer penalty between the powersupply beam
Sry I told stats for power-drain - here a quote from the file:
HTML:
<PowerSupply>
<BasicValues>
<SupplyPerHit>40</SupplyPerHit>
<PowerConsumption>60</PowerConsumption>
<Distance>200</Distance> <!-- timeBetweenHits = 1 / (unitSize^pow)*mult -->
<SpeedPowPerUnit>1</SpeedPowPerUnit> <!-- this non linear scaling up of beam ROF the larger an array is will impact balance in a nasty way, can we make it a set value -->
<SpeedMultPerUnit>7</SpeedMultPerUnit>
<CoolDown>1</CoolDown> <!-- Time it takes to fire beam again from the start-time it first activated -->
<BurstTime>1</BurstTime> <!-- Time the beam will fire -->
<InitialTicks>0</InitialTicks> <!-- Ticks to do at the initial contact of beam with a block -->
</BasicValues>
I think it means that a power-supply beam will hit 7 times per array-block per second and consume 60 to give 40, but does NOT drain 100 in total (that would be ridiculous)
This means 1 supply block can transfer 280 of 420 power per second and you need 1 per 3 reactor blocks (i count 145 power each as I don't know the how much lower the exact scaling of the new system is, yet)
=> At least 1/4 mass is power-supply.
Due to a logic-grids lag, I would add 2 supply, 4 reactors to the reactor-ship.
Then, you would need about 1/2 second power-storage - or better -due to lag- 1 second.
=> 1000* 1.05^150 = 2'456'336 (as 1000*1.05^135 = 725'363 only) => 150 mass in power-tanks
6827 reactors? But when I think of that 23^3 mille reactor with 1/4 blocks occupied is already 3041 in the old system, who knows? and my 123+7+7 reactor also had 6k mass...
Then would at least power-tanks would add almost nothing to the weight. Is this formula bugged? I remember to had in my 123*7*7 at least 1/3 power tanks for 1 mille storage.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
