1. We've removed some functionality from SMD in preparation for a migration to new forum software.

    What have you done... (power system wtf)

    Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Captain Fortius, Sep 15, 2017.

    1. Captain Fortius

      Joined:
      Aug 10, 2013
      Messages:
      284
      Allright.

      Let's start with the good parts.
      There ARE some good things in the new power system video.

      Namely power priorities, the long overdue fix for weapons consuming power before firing ( I don't know why was this not treated as a bug sooner; ATM if there's not enough power to shoot a weapon, attempting to shoot it will still drain what little power you DO have. Been like that since forever. ) , and changeable reactor presets...

      ... Except, you know when I log in to post, it can't mean all is well.

      There are a couple conceptual errors here.

      1. - Stabilizers.

      So, they "stabilize" the reactor, by being FAR AWAY from said reactor? The closest IRL thing the name reminds me are reactor control rods or maybe the bath that keeps the fission material under control.
      Imagine what would happen if either of those would not be inside the reactor but on the other side of the building.

      That aside, when I build a ship, I pick a nice cozy spot for a reactor room, and I want my reactor to be there and there alone. I don't want part of the reactor in the tail fin and part in the prow ornament.

      It's a waste of space, it's not how reactors work, and it promotes a certain kind of ship shape over the rest ( long and thin in either direction over stocky types.)

      How to fix:

      Delete stabilizers and the new reactors. Keep old reactor and power tank, but make the reactor's power generation scale like the powertank ( quantity matters, not shape ). Make both block types volatile like current auxiliary reactors. Give each group a turn on / turn off button.

      "..b-but then it favors size and it's unfair for small ships!!!"
      - NOT! It's actually way worse to try and cram in numerous 3-dimensional powerlines into what little room is available in a small ship than it is to draw a few neat lines in a much bigger ship.
      Just balance the numbers to give you the same pow.gen. in a small ship as you could get with the very best powerline layout.

      2. - Reactor Chambers.

      Sooo, I'm flying now, so I turn on my THRUSTER REACTORS....... then I wanna shoot at something, so I turn that reactor off and start up a different reactor that is more... shooty but not so speedy?

      Nope. You don't want to hear the expletives that flood my mind at this moment.

      A reactor, or a number of reactor puts out power. Period. That's that.
      Priorities window alone could do what your overcomplicated "chambers" do without wasting precious room and mass in the ship.

      How to fix:

      Delete every chamber block. Make systems performance depend on how much power you've rooted to them via the priorities menu. ( more power to acceleration, top speed, ship weapons, turret weapons, etc, you had a good idea there. ) Let the player save a number of presets. Let it be changed via key commands, or a new piece of the HUD. ( Star Trek Online comes to mind. They did it pretty well )

      "b-but it adds depth to ship customization!!!"
      -Yyyeah, but I've already customized my ship by deciding how much thrusters, how much cannons, etc, will I use.


      TLDR:

      It's what I feared. A good starting idea devolving into overcomplicated sillyness.
      Schema & Co! You don't have to follow my ideas, but at least scrap your current ones about this system.
      Simpler is better.
      Heck, at this point I'd say it came to what the naysayers said from the start: Even the current system is better.
       
      • Disagree Disagree x 38
      • Agree Agree x 2
      • Informative Informative x 1
      • Useful Useful x 1
    2. DrTarDIS

      DrTarDIS Eldrich Timelord

      Joined:
      Jan 16, 2014
      Messages:
      1,014
      Stabilizers are more like radiators, (naming conventions. And those you most assuredly need far away. If you want IRL examples, a nuclear plant fits the bill.

      I agree with some of your points but disagree with the overall premise. I'm thinking spherical/boxy ships will be more efficient than long& thin.

      We'll all have to wait to get our hands on it though.
       
      • Agree Agree x 6
      • Disagree Disagree x 1
    3. Cluwne

      Joined:
      Aug 3, 2016
      Messages:
      187
      Except that's retarded because you want your radiators as close to whatever needs cooling as possible, so the heat transfer and subsequent cooling through radiation would happen faster.
      God, I still can't believe they went with those idiotic stabilizers instead of good ol' heat. I mean, real-life physics is the best subtle softcap, what with square-cube law and all that.
       
      • Agree Agree x 3
      • Disagree Disagree x 2
    4. Daro_Khan

      Daro_Khan Bearer of Truths

      Joined:
      Jul 1, 2013
      Messages:
      72
      Yawn... How bout ya'll actually play the dam dev build when its out to actually see what they have with physical proof of testing and construct proper feedback that way? Just going on about (That's not how it works in REAL LIFE and I dont this WAAAA) is just utter bullshit.

      Its a pre beta game expect changes, stop nitpicking things you dont have in your hands yet. and dont get me started on IRL. We can have a big pointless discussion about how games work and how IRL works, its fruitless.
       
      • Agree Agree x 6
      • Disagree Disagree x 3
      • Like Like x 1
    5. Cluwne

      Joined:
      Aug 3, 2016
      Messages:
      187
      What and lose on possible entertainment of bickering like an old couple?
      muh beta.jpg
       
      • Funny x 7
      • Like x 1
      • Disagree x 1
      • Agree x 1
      • Creative x 1
    6. El_Poulpy

      Joined:
      Jun 26, 2013
      Messages:
      160
      - the aim of the stabilizer is to limit the power generation to size ratio.
      - the chamber system allows to add effects that don't depend on the tedious overal ship mass and a lot of differents effects with few blocks types. It possibly allows the new radar/cloak/jamming system without the problem big ship could have more place to have bigger radar so smaller ship stealth couldn't compare to them and be useful.

      Your current proposition fails to handle these problems
       
      • Agree Agree x 7
      • Disagree Disagree x 1
    7. Daro_Khan

      Daro_Khan Bearer of Truths

      Joined:
      Jul 1, 2013
      Messages:
      72
      I would agree. though I wouldn't see any of these as problems :P Though a Large ships scanner chamber would have to be massive relative to its reactors power size, and it would be expensive chamber wise and they ship wouldnt be able to use any other chambers aslong as it stays with the scannner array chamber/ reactor (it would have to switch modes if it has a combat reactor) Again this just points out large ships could have multiroll, but it wouldnt be a fast or wise switch in combat

      Also expensive and not mass produce able.

      If you can afford a big ship you should be rewarded with adding all the bells and whistles. But in the end that one ship might win a battle not the war.

      We have a lot of things that are not in the game yet to get a clear pitcture, but this is a good move.

      Lets wait to see the Universe update, Weapon update and NPC/Crew/AI Stuff The many core things that are missing in the game. The foundation and steps toward beta!
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
    8. ZektorSK

      ZektorSK Poor boi from northern Hungary ^^

      Joined:
      Aug 31, 2015
      Messages:
      408
      They added "disagree" button? Wow, when did that happen
       
      • Disagree Disagree x 8
      • Agree Agree x 1
    9. DrTarDIS

      DrTarDIS Eldrich Timelord

      Joined:
      Jan 16, 2014
      Messages:
      1,014
      I think you're putting an ASSuMEtion into your thoughts on radiators...if you're trying to keep heat out of a system you want to eject it as far away as possible due to inverse-square rule on radiation->less of it can "get back in".
      But that's just me spitting a hair.
      Until we see exactly how the changer system works, we can't know for sure, but I REALLY hope it's going to be a system that makes the "star plat" or whatever it's called graph in the blueprints menu accurately reflect things.

      I'm looking at it as hey've sepeated the balance two ways. Actual blocks/mass goes into filling out this chart-placement.
      [​IMG]
      SO the magnitude of mass would "class" a ship's size, the ratio between the three it's "role"



      and other utility stuff goes into chambers to overlay that somewhat like this:
      [​IMG]
      putting a "sub role", where all 100 mass ships with more offence and weapons would be "light(mass magnitude) strike(higher speed & weapons than armor) craft" Chambers would let you specialise into one of so many areas that oppose each other.

      Ships should still fight "in their weight range" but might have a 100 mass "Paper", that can only win 50% o the time vs a 500 mass "spock", where a 100 mass paper always wins vs a 100 mass "spock" or "rock".

      I wonder if I'm elucidating my hopes properly.
       
      • Like Like x 5
      • Funny Funny x 2
      • Informative Informative x 1
    10. Drakkart

      Joined:
      Nov 3, 2014
      Messages:
      619
      Well to sum it up. We provided feedback on the original suggestion thread, i feel like we were ignored for we basically still recieved the idea they announced back then, so why should we care anymore? This is how the devs want the game so let's see how it turns out and let's not waste anymore though on all the wasted potential.
      I appreciate the power system being easier to get into for newbies. i dislike the lack of the "hard to master" part and the feel of it feeling artificial not logical by any means. And i absolutely hate that effective builds are forced to reach out on one axis.
      good bye multiple reactor ships, interesting heat distribution systems and all the other great suggestions...
       
      • Disagree Disagree x 4
      • Agree Agree x 4
    11. Panpiper

      Joined:
      Jan 1, 2015
      Messages:
      922
      The "lack of 'hard to master'" is to me an utter disaster. I will give the game another look, a year or so down the road once they have implemented all the mechanics of the new system. But I fully expect the game they are building now will hold little interest to me. I am not in the slightest bit interested in spending many, many hours of my life piling blocks, with little more thought than that of a baby doing the same. Making "pretty" is of ABSOLUTELY no interest to me, if I cannot also massage complexity into perfection.

      Complexity however is not lots and lots of fiddly bits to make pretty work. Complexity is nuanced ways to squeeze greater performance out of a system. The new game being built does not have that. I lament the passing of the old game.

      There is no point to my complaint at this point. The decision has been made. Too much time and effort has already been put into this new game. Starmade has been dumbed down so those evil power players can no longer out build the RPers. The RPers will cheer. The rest will move on, in search of a better game. It was fun while it lasted.
       
      • Disagree Disagree x 7
      • Agree Agree x 7
      • Like Like x 1
    12. Drakkart

      Joined:
      Nov 3, 2014
      Messages:
      619
      Dude i play robocraft, it meanwhile has a horrible loot system aquiring new parts for newbies is hell but the game has interesting mechanics which allow to either rock one opponent but then being utterly in a disadvantage against an other... and building jack of all trades reallly really is a challenge. i can not recommend it due to the changes they made in past years but being a vet there gives me enourmous freedom should you already play it let me know...
       
      • Useful Useful x 1
    13. Top 4ce

      Top 4ce Force or Ace?

      Joined:
      Jul 25, 2013
      Messages:
      525
      This whole "isn't hard to master due to lack of complexity" argument seems to have little basis. The complexity has shifted from a convoluted, hard to understand, and overly complicated way to generate power, to a system that generating power is easy and its how you manage that power between chambers (which have set limits, that doesn't make 'larger is better') and what the demands are during diffident operations is the complexity that you have to master.

      It just seems like complaining because of "now I'm forced to change and adapt, and I don't want too."
       
      • Agree Agree x 11
      • Disagree Disagree x 1
    14. Panpiper

      Joined:
      Jan 1, 2015
      Messages:
      922
      Previously there was a complex system which had to be learned before one could build effective ships. Effective pretty ships could then ensue. Once one had learned that complex system, there were a wealth of ways in which a good engineer could squeeze extra performance out of the system.

      Now, there is a complex system (moderately less so for power, but much more so as other things get added) which has to be learned before one can build effective ships. Effective pretty ships can then ensue. HOWEVER, there is no longer any way to squeeze extra performance out of the system. Those are 'exploits', and are bad. I could not disagree more profoundly. Having extremely difficult to master and build mechanisms to exceed normal limits is a feature of fantastic game design, that no longer exists in Starmade.

      Starmade is now a building block game with a huge learning curve, power changes not withstanding, in which you can build pretty ships. Your pretty ship will not be better than my pretty ship. It will only be different. There is no 'game' any longer in such building, just work, and pretty.
       
      • Disagree Disagree x 6
      • Agree Agree x 5
    15. Coyote27

      Joined:
      Jul 30, 2017
      Messages:
      193
      As far as stabilizers, I'm not exactly clear on what they do mechanically and why they're needed, but they don't seem inherently terrible to me. I don't see a particular need to out them on one end of a ship and the reactor on the other and make the whole thing long and skinny, you could also put them on fins/wings like a flat radiator would be, and they might even be more survivable there than in the nose of your ship in the first place. So, while I'm not enturely sure what they're supposed to accomplish in terms of gameplay and influence on designs, neither do I see anything particularly bad about them.

      Now regarding chambers and multiple reactors: Why do so many of you people seem to have the impression that you'd be required to use multiple specialized reactors and swap between them? I don't really understand this. You can do it if you have a specific reason to, if there's systems and chambers that you are sure you're not going to need at the same time and/or you want to have multiple reactors anyway for redundancy, but I utterly fail to see any indication that it'd be either required or necessarily even optimal to do so - and it's likely even suboptimal most of the time and only makes sense when you have a clear and specific reason for it.

      The impression I'm getting is a lot of unnecessary panic over a system that you'll probably end up liking once you see it in action. I don't think Schema are perfect, but I refuse to believe that they're intentionally trying to ruin your gaming experience.

      What I'm seeing is that we're going to be handed a much larger toolbox for customization than we had before, and a more block-efficient and space-efficient way to build the base-level systems that all our ships need. The implementation will probably be imperfect and require balancing and tuning, but it's worth it if you ask me.
       
      • Agree Agree x 4
    16. Scypio

      Joined:
      Sep 18, 2014
      Messages:
      565
      Just ask yourself why we use today several different defensive effects on our ships. Then you'll have your answer.
       
    17. DrTarDIS

      DrTarDIS Eldrich Timelord

      Joined:
      Jan 16, 2014
      Messages:
      1,014
      I'm also excited at how they hinted this can apply effects to sectors(and maybe Systems) through stations. Ships will take a hit in some builds, get other ones to compensate.
      • maybe chambers used to prevent inbound and outbound jumps in an area.
      • interdiction, or bonus to jumps(make a highway)
      • or reduce/increase max speed
      • mining bonus, or auto(faction) mining?
      • project faction-ownership on asteroids, planets?
      • trade tax?
      I think it'll be a nice buff to fleets too, since aggro-range can vary with stealth vs scanning chambers, throw-weight, etc.
       
    18. Zekester81

      Joined:
      Oct 22, 2014
      Messages:
      334
      I can't wait to get my hands on and see what happens, I'll make an opinion when I can try both at once. And Panpiper, Bye, bon voyage, gtfo. If you don't like what devs do with their own game, go make your own. I like this one. I don't care that they don't meet my personal tastes, I just want to play the fucking game. If they can do something to make it easier for them down the road to do more with the game, for a shift in complexity, then so be it.
       
      • Agree Agree x 4
      • Disagree Disagree x 3
    19. Cluwne

      Joined:
      Aug 3, 2016
      Messages:
      187
      It'd be pretty dope if they would let us set it up to (not) affect only a certain group - faction, allies, neutrals and enemies.
      But even as an IFF-less "screw everyone in the sector" system it would work fine. I wonder if the warpgates would still work there.
      That'd be pretty neat. Although I'd rather have a proper dedicated FTL mechanic for traveling across the galaxy, like the hyperdrive they mentioned some time ago.
      It's not that hard to grasp really: don't load anything, don't interact with anything and zoom around at (adjustable) breakneck speed.
      You only send your position to the server until you return to realspace, whether on your own or booted out of it with interdiction fields.
      Instead of seeing stuff you get nav markers and map to guide you.
      And there probably should be a warning if you're about to emerge from hyperspace inside a star.
      Or not, so that people could have lots and lots of !!FUN!! losing their ships to stars.
      There is mining bonus already, although phasing it out in favor of infrastructure you actually have to build in maintain would do wonders to immersion and, I'm sure, would please both RP and PvP crowds.
      RP folk/dedicated builders get to chill out building their utility stations.
      PvP gang gets to attack enemy infrastructure and actually harm the enemy that way. Or seize it and maybe use against the enemy, I dunno.
      Why though? Asteroids aren't even permanent objects and regenerate, given the chance.
      What would it achieve? And you can already claim planets with faction modules.

      Another thing is, perhaps, expanding on homebase invulnerability, if not phasing it out as well. Wouldn't want that though.
      Say you have a large system base with all the bells and whistles, and you want to protect it.
      So you place several support stations all over the system, that project some sort of shield on the base or simply every station in the system.
      Whether it protects it completely or just negates % of damage done could be a config option.
       
      • Agree Agree x 2
    20. DrTarDIS

      DrTarDIS Eldrich Timelord

      Joined:
      Jan 16, 2014
      Messages:
      1,014
      you can't salvage a faction-owned asteroid if you're not in that faction, thus projecting ownership on asteroids without having to manually place a faction block would be a strategic control/advantage."only the glorious [kekistani] may mine this system!"

      I see you're warming up to the idea now that you notice the options the cat-god is including. :)
       
      • Agree Agree x 1
    Loading...