Why I think the power system update shouldn't upset us so much

[JinM]

Introduction
As many people again and again and again adress the power update proposal as something that hinders them from building I want to try to share my point of view on this matter.

To be more precise I am really annoyed by the people who constantly claim that they can't build any longer, because they would have to meticulously refit the systems of their ship.

That is just not true. And that isn't a question of playstyle. There are many reasons any power change isn't as bad as anyone is talking about it:

Reasons
Transition time. Take the example of the old turret systems. They were still in the game for over a year. Even if we assume a small transition time, I would say at least 4 months - I repeat: FOUR months - will there be time to redo any ship you think that is worthy to keep in your inventory.

Development time and estimated future of your own Starmade consumption. When do you guys think this power change will happen? From what I felt when I read the developers forum entries: I doubt that it will happen within the next 3 months. First there will be planets, so much is pretty sure. And the music is a near future thing too. So 3 months dev time and 4 months transition time. Speaking from my own experiences, I can't really say if I play any game in 7 months. And this is the worst case scenario, where Shine did the power change in an inhuman speed and on top of that made a very small transition time of four months. I think it's not natural to brag about any gaming stuff (ey this is not your workplace lol) that will happen in 7 months or later. Who knows if you are still playing, and what can happen in that time? And maybe your gamestyle changed too. 7 months minimum is a long time.

Time needed to refit a ship. I don't know how you good guys are at building, but for me the following steps don't seem too unrealistic for me:
- Replace tool: power regen modules with shield capacitors
- Make a hole (why not in some shield capacitor arragements?) where you want to put your new power generator space
- Oh. That might be it.
So I know it might be more difficult. But what is the concrete worst case? How long do you think would that take for one ship? I might need less than 30 minutes for any ship below 200m length. Yes titans might need some serious refitting. But I doubt anyone has more than 2 titans and spending two hours to make some room for the new generators for one titan each is nothing that prevents you from playing Starmade for the next 6 months. Yes, if one system changes, the other might change too. But I think this is also a bit about a positive perspective and not expecting the worst.

The proposed details of the new system. They say, that ships will have more interior room. That's is the point of the new power systems. So for me this means, that your ships will have less weigth, and will need less power capacitor and regen blocks. I really doubt, that Shine is making it in a way, that ships with the new power have a disadvantage, and thus the same amount of space or less will be needed for put in new systems. (My english isn't that good use your imagination to understand me on this one please.)

Purpose of systems and the ever changing meta in alpha. To put it in easy words: If your ships are all about systems and nothing else, then I really don't understand why you are playing Starmade. Starmade is about pvp, and thus systems, yes. But we all know, that Shine will redo pvp in the future. The meta will change. Even if they wouldn't do the power change, the systems will change anyway. You are forced to make system changes as long as Starmade will be in alpha anyway. Minimum alpha, why not even beta??? Meta is constantly changing in any competetive online game. Name me one competetive online game except chess where this isn't true. And in a gamestate where new features get added constantly, the meta changes should be way stronger than we are experienced them up to now in Starmade. Expect the change guys even after the power and maybe even before the power.

Purpose of building ships in a sandbox game . When I read people here or ingame, that they can't have fun anymore and their ships they build are feeling meaningless, I really ask me: What are you building, that it is all about the power? For me building a ship is about so many things: Hullshape, design, purpose within my fleet, weapons, walkways and inner layout, docking, logic, and so on. If a player tells me, that Starmade lost all its appeal for him, because he feels that building is now meaningless, I really doubt that his ship ever was more than a bloddy brick. That's a total exaggeration: Every ship has so much more to offer than a power system. Yes: Many guys might be focused on pvp and thus systems are 90% of those ships. But Starmade never was and never will be this sort of engineering only game. The games entire game mechanic focus is about a broad range of creative and pvp possibilities, and not only about engineering for pvp.

PVP: The power system and combat systems need to change. So the power system, with this 2 million power regen pvp meta...I really don't like it. You guys might not have noticed it, but your oh so great pvp is about 10k massor bigger ships, because there the 2million power regen is easily to fit into any ship bigger than 5k mass. Try to build an odd shaped ship with dimenions of 40x40x80 meter plus minus 20, and fit the systems for 1.5 million regen into there. You will have a hard time and it will take you ages.I really despise this: Because I build smaller ships, I have a way harder time putting in effective systems. It should be the other way around: big ships should be complex with the power line knots, and small ships shouldn't care about this strange knot time waste.
And the combat system...Well seriously it sounds fun on paper, but atm. for me the cannons and the missiles...Well once I broke a ships shields with my beam only ship the damage needed to destroy the blocks is not that big of a deal. I wouldn't call that balanced and complex pvp...

PvP: Forced to "keep up". Yes, for this one I don't have a strong counter argument. I agree on this one, that it might or might not force people to refit any ship that want's to do pvp, because the old system might be inferior. But here I want to repeat: we don't know that jet. This is pure speculation, and I don't orient my actions on speculations about stuff that maybe is ready in 3 or more months. Also I want to repeat: the meta will change anyway in this game, and so you are forced to refit ships anyway for pvp often enough.

Closure
I wrote this text, to inspire people to play the game even though there will be changes in the future. Yes, we will be forced to rebuild our ships. But I think this is a good thing too. And because it is not in the next few months, we will have a reason to give our old rustbuckets some new glance and shimmer. I like to redo systems from time to time on my ships, so they don't feel like same old stuff anymore. And I think if I have to redo my ships, 4 months transition time or even longer, will be perfectly fine.

Lastly I want to state, that I understand, if some people are still upset by the power change. There are overall some justified reasons to be that too. I hope to give some guys a different point of view to this thing, and don't expect you to share my opinion on this one. I would just be happy if one or two guys don't see it that badly anymore.

Nettiquette
Please bear in mind, that this is a very sensitive topic for some people, and many guys on this forum are incapable of talking constructive. Example: Calling statements dumb is the biggest bullshit that gets accepted as discussion culture here on this forum, and really: Please don't do it, even though the mods seem to ignore that kind of anarchy.

And please don't cherrypick sentences. Understand a whole argument, and maybe even how some of them interact and support each other.

And please don't fight about the one truth. Everyone has the right on his own opinion. If you disagree with something, it's fine to say that. But it's not fine to expect an answer on a question, that actually just wants to proof your own disagreement. You might be right, but the overall opinion of a dude might not change by annoying cherrypicking questions guys.

 

[Crashmaster]

To be more precise I am really annoyed by the people who constantly claim that they can't build any longer, because they would have to meticulously refit the systems of their ship.

That is just not true. And that isn't a question of playstyle.

I disagree. I meticulously fit the original systems, replacement systems will surely be fitted in the same manner. I don't just stick it in some random hole.

If a player tells me, that Starmade lost all its appeal for him, because he feels that building is now meaningless, I really doubt that his ship ever was more than a bloddy brick.

I don't think denigrating the build style of people whose opinion differs from yours is well inline with your pushing of 'nettiquette' and 'talking constructive.' These sort of double standards are what annoy me.

And please don't fight about the one truth. Everyone has the right on his own opinion.

I don't think these two sentences belong together.

 

[GRHayes]

I really haven't seen anyone complaining to much about the new power system itself primarily because no one has any clue what it will end up as.
However, just looking at the new proposal a lot of ship designs that made use of the small space requirements up to 2 million power will have trouble fitting in the new power system. Take a ship that relied on the ability to use the run length of various hulls to create a long power reactor. That same ship may not have the compressed cubic space to put a single square block of that nature.
Larger ships will certainly fair better because they have more internal space to build and rearrange stuff.

Maybe the best idea is use the current system up to 2 million power and the new system for power greater than 2 million.

Regardless what happens the issue with power not transferring up stream properly has to be fixed. With large constant fire weapons last I tested you have sputter fire. The way it was I would have to add a equally large power system to every weapons turret greater than 2 million power.
God for bid you have a modular space station.

Some people build by designing what they want a ship to look like and then fill it in. I don't.
I build by purpose. I decide what role the ship is to fill and what it needs to do that. Then design power around that. Then I design the ship to make use of it fitting it in. In short I stopped building because the current power system is broken so not worth bothering with and I have no idea what the future power system is actually going to be like because everything is up in the air.

 

[kulbolen]

To be more precise I am really annoyed by the people who constantly claim that they can't build any longer, because they would have to meticulously refit the systems of their ship.

That is just not true.

you are 100% wrong. saying something isnt true doesnt make it so. people who wish to keep the ships they create now WILL have to refit them if power system is changed. some people accept this and some dont... but its still a fact.

If a player tells me, that Starmade lost all its appeal for him, because he feels that building is now meaningless, I really doubt that his ship ever was more than a bloddy brick.

people who make complex ships will probably have a lot more work involved in refitting than people who make bricks, so that entire line of thought seems backwards to me.

Nettiquette
Please bear in mind, that this is a very sensitive topic for some people, and many guys on this forum are incapable of talking constructive. Example: Calling statements dumb is the biggest bullshit that gets accepted as discussion culture here on this forum, and really: Please don't do it, even though the mods seem to ignore that kind of anarchy.

And please don't cherrypick sentences. Understand a whole argument, and maybe even how some of them interact and support each other.

this statement is dumb. it serves to discourage any counterpoints or criticism of your point of view. you are criticizing others opinions while attempting to make yours untouchable.

 

[JinM]

I disagree. I meticulously fit the original systems, replacement systems will surely be fitted in the same manner. I don't just stick it in some random hole.

Ofcourse you are upset by that exta work. My text was not about denying this, I just hoped to give some positive thoughts about the matter, so people maybe reffering a little bit less to the power change. And I hoped to change some person's perspective on it too, as I haven't read many simmilar thoughts like my arguments on this forum up to today.

I don't think denigrating the build style of people whose opinion differs from yours is well inline with your pushing of 'nettiquette' and 'talking constructive.' These sort of double standards are what annoy me.

I am sorry if that sentence annoyed you. I hoped that one or two percent "a little rude stuff" of an overall not rude text would be ok for anyone to bear. I was reffering to people who are mainly writing in this style like you pointed out in my one sentence ("bloddy brick etc"). I thought one or two harsh side remarks that are not aimed to make a big hurtfull statement in a text of like 100 sentences are acceptable. After all I didn't call one person's ship a bloddy brick, and tried to point out an example. If you call on me for one sentence, I hope you are calling on others who call my stuff dumb too. If you are not I doubt that the nettiquette of our forum is really important to you and you just want to find some logical mistakes in my texts you can be annoyed about.
Still I consider changing some stuff in my text so it has a higher impact and is less about my emotions towards the constant power nagging that happens everyday here since the proposal was written.

I really haven't seen anyone complaining to much about the new power system itself primarily because no one has any clue what it will end up as.

Maybe I am just focusing too much on some small percentage of the players. ^^

However, just looking at the new proposal a lot of ship designs that made use of the small space requirements up to 2 million power will have trouble fitting in the new power system. Take a ship that relied on the ability to use the run length of various hulls to create a long power reactor. That same ship may not have the compressed cubic space to put a single square block of that nature.
Larger ships will certainly fair better because they have more internal space to build and rearrange stuff.

Well lets hope the best. I think the same about larger ships.They maybe will have an easier time here.

 

[wizardoftrash]

If you are working on a COLLOSSAL FUNCITONAL SHIP that will take AT LEAST ANOTHER 4 MONTHS TO BUILD then yes, I could see wanting to wait until after the power system overhaul to continue working on it.

However, how many of us still use ships that we built 7 months ago? even 4 months ago?

By the time this update drops, we will all want to build new ships to take full advantage of this system, and probably from the ground-up. This power system overhaul isn't just about changing the type of space and mass we allocate to power to get the same flat rate. It'll open the door to all kinds of reactor attachments that can change how power is generated and distributed in a big way.

We are talking about an evolutionary leap in ship-building options, a building renaissance of sorts that will no doubt bring back a bunch of players who have forgotten about this game again. Players should have every reason to be hella excited about this update, not anxious or dissapointed.

The biggest resistance to this change comes from players losing existing work and losing their mastery of the system, which is a necessary result of any big additions or inclusions to a game like this. It absolutely will upset the meta, and this is a source of stress for players who are competent in this meta. There are players out there who invested a ton of time not just into building pvp ships, but learning principles of power management design that'll all mean nothing. Those players will be able to master a new system too.

 

[Tamren Shade]

I don't know if I can fairly judge if the power system is broken or not, but I can and will judge that the current system is counterintuitive and boring. That's a problem for a game people play for fun.

The idea of having a deeper and more complex mini game where I get to design a spaceship power reactor and possibly a power grid sounds freaking awesome to me! Way better then just laying down spaghetti noodle lines of the same block, and then laying in big connected groups of one or two other blocks.

I know there are some vocal opponents of the upcoming change, but everyone I've asked online seems to be looking forward to a new power system. Maybe this is reflective of my sample size, or the servers I play on, or the time I log on to play....

 

[kulbolen]

However, how many of us still use ships that we built 7 months ago? even 4 months ago?

i use 2 year old ships still, but thats just because im lazy and theyre adequate. i dont mind refitting ships or learning a new system; i want the new system to be GOOD.

 

[StormWing0]

Refitting one or two ships isn't the issue, it's refitting sometimes 30+ ships and even stations that's the issue. If you're the type to build a blank hull first and keep the thing saved for later it's easy to just scrap the old ship and stick the new stuff into the thing, but if you don't keep a blank copy on hand than refitting 30+ ships and stations could take a whole hell of a lot more time than 4 months.


As for the new power system I'm not going to have many issues refitting my ships and stations since I build new ones each server I'm on anyways. I always build small ships and stations that can take on things several times their size so keeping things as compact as possible works for me. Like others seeing this new system it means that we're going to have to put a lot more air in our ships and stations than we'd like but it is able to be worked around.

 

[Comradecolonel]

Honestly for me theres a long list of impending features that have prevented me from building things. The power proposal is just another brick in the wall. Until most of the place holder mechanics become something more I feel little need to sit around and tweak. The only future proof building I can do at this point is purely cosmetic as almost every system in the game is probably going to be revamped. I might as well just wait. That's assuming this game is ever going to get to a truly playable state.

 

[Captain_Stripes]

Since apparently new thread rules forbid us to base responses on exact sentences, I guess i'll give a half-assed response to the argument presented.

I've already made a post regarding the difficulty of building in the light of impending change. Its a good summary of my initial thoughts on the change and still my stance on the change for the most part. And my half assed response to like 90% to your arguments. Basically we can speculate all we want on the change and what it entails but without exact certain ideas, no one knows at all how to focus their builds and how their building style will be in the future. Anything built now might not be meaningless, but equally meaningless. Any ship now is a Schrodinger's ship. Either completely dead or completely alive and thats a major turn off for anyone who wants to solidify their style and looking for long term commitment to their work. Yes refitting is a thing, but literally the most tedious aspect of this game and with no solid game play mechanics outside of simply building, the attrition is amplified.

To a degree I understand being annoyed by specific mindset by a community in a game, but a dismissal of opinion because it doesn't align with yours or is "annoying" is not a community friendly approach and its why schine tries to stay mostly communicative on the subject. There has been a few changes where the community had substantial outcry, a few weapon balancing changes for example, and if you read thru many of those responses it boils down mostly to "shut up the game is alpha". Schine has learn in early years that community involvement and sharing of opinions (including yes, differing ones) is whats needed to truly grow a game that is develop by one person alone. Opinions are welcomed, criticisms are welcomed, it makes good games.

Spoiler: And im sorry, I do have to "cherrypick" one thing.

And please don't fight about the one truth. Everyone has the right on his own opinion. If you disagree with something, it's fine to say that. But it's not fine to expect an answer on a question, that actually just wants to proof your own disagreement. You might be right, but the overall opinion of a dude might not change by annoying cherrypicking questions guys.

This is one fucked up paragraph. Fist it took me a while to correctly understand your meaning of the first sentence and relation to the second. Im not a hard core grammar nazi, and I did read the part about how English is not your strong suit. But a simple comma instead of two differing sentences would clear up some initial confusion.

And please don't fight about the one truth. Everyone has the right on his own opinion.

When broken up like this, the sentence appears as so: The "One Truth" you speak of only has relation to previous statements because there is no grammatical connection to the following sentence. So inherently a natural English reader will assume that the one truth is all of your previous statements, which makes it sound like you're stating that all of your opinions and speculations are the one truth. Followed up by the "everyone has the right on his own opinion, makes this an oxymoron.

Now stated like this:

And please don't fight about the one truth; everyone has the right on his own opinion.

Simply adding a semicolon connects the two different sentences to a single idea. Meaning that now the natural English reader will read that the one truth is that everyone has the right on his own opinion. I know to anyone not familiar with English will think of this as bizarre and extremely nit picky and in most cases this is. But this is a certain and rare case where grammar is everything in the communication. And why many people may read your post with an arrogant vibe, even if not intended so.

Onto the next part:

If you disagree with something, it's fine to say that. But it's not fine to expect an answer on a question, that actually just wants to proof your own disagreement. You might be right, but the overall opinion of a dude might not change by annoying cherrypicking questions guys.

This part has nothing to do with your grammar but your ethic. This is a forum, with public conversations and public discourse. You may set your own rules but in the forum, the forums rules trumps all. Now there are no rules on disagreement so long as its not flaming. A question is not an attack on your opinions unless you only view it as an attack. People will ask questions about what ever strikes their curiosity not to "one up" you but to confirm understanding. It is how you answer these questions, no matter how challenging, that forms the opinion of others. To state that someone's questions is "annoying" is rude and dismissive and the foundations of your arguments will crumble if you decide to ignore thought provoking, challenging questions.

 

[Ghent96]

Jim... you're a tool. So many of us have posted ad nauseum about why the new power proposal is a nightmare, terrible, utterly useless, a waste of time, an annoyance to players and a hinderance to the community, and etc etc... you know if you can't be bothered to read and understand all that, then I can't be bothered to read your silly toolish post trying to tell us all to just relax and open up our bungholes to just take it from the dev team... again.

These Schine devs have broken the game and fundamentally changed it several times already, forcing players to do major redesigns on ships, but NEVER, NEVER to this total fundamentally game changing and every-single-ship-breaking level. Majority of the community spoke up and said no. You and your fanboi ilk Stop effing being such a tool. Just because you agree with the devs doesn't always make it a better thing for the game.

There are so many other things to worry about and develop and fix in SM... for them to totally, fundamentally change power at this point is utterly foolish. Everyone knows it. They know it. The existing mechanic is just fine, it's unique, it's innovative, no one has ever done a power system like this, and like most things in alpha/beta just needs a rebalance, not a game-breaking total remake.

Some new power system is not going to solve world hunger, nor be innovative (especially the proposed elite dangerous copy-cat heat system), nor win any game dev awards, nor impress any fellow indie game devs to even get so much as a pat on the back. It's just going to piss majority of the community off and further shrink the player base out of frustration..

You know how the stock market performs poorly when it doesn't know what to expect from world leaders. Same thing with gamers and devs. ;p

 

[JinM]

Since apparently new thread rules forbid us to base responses on exact sentences, I guess i'll give a half-assed response to the argument presented.

I've already made a post regarding the difficulty of building in the light of impending change. Its a good summary of my initial thoughts on the change and still my stance on the change for the most part. And my half assed response to like 90% to your arguments. Basically we can speculate all we want on the change and what it entails but without exact certain ideas, no one knows at all how to focus their builds and how their building style will be in the future. Anything built now might not be meaningless, but equally meaningless. Any ship now is a Schrodinger's ship. Either completely dead or completely alive and thats a major turn off for anyone who wants to solidify their style and looking for long term commitment to their work. Yes refitting is a thing, but literally the most tedious aspect of this game and with no solid game play mechanics outside of simply building, the attrition is amplified.

To a degree I understand being annoyed by specific mindset by a community in a game, but a dismissal of opinion because it doesn't align with yours or is "annoying" is not a community friendly approach and its why schine tries to stay mostly communicative on the subject. There has been a few changes where the community had substantial outcry, a few weapon balancing changes for example, and if you read thru many of those responses it boils down mostly to "shut up the game is alpha". Schine has learn in early years that community involvement and sharing of opinions (including yes, differing ones) is whats needed to truly grow a game that is develop by one person alone. Opinions are welcomed, criticisms are welcomed, it makes good games.

Spoiler: And im sorry, I do have to "cherrypick" one thing.

This is one fucked up paragraph. Fist it took me a while to correctly understand your meaning of the first sentence and relation to the second. Im not a hard core grammar nazi, and I did read the part about how English is not your strong suit. But a simple comma instead of two differing sentences would clear up some initial confusion.



When broken up like this, the sentence appears as so: The "One Truth" you speak of only has relation to previous statements because there is no grammatical connection to the following sentence. So inherently a natural English reader will assume that the one truth is all of your previous statements, which makes it sound like you're stating that all of your opinions and speculations are the one truth. Followed up by the "everyone has the right on his own opinion, makes this an oxymoron.

Now stated like this:


Simply adding a semicolon connects the two different sentences to a single idea. Meaning that now the natural English reader will read that the one truth is that everyone has the right on his own opinion. I know to anyone not familiar with English will think of this as bizarre and extremely nit picky and in most cases this is. But this is a certain and rare case where grammar is everything in the communication. And why many people may read your post with an arrogant vibe, even if not intended so.

Onto the next part:


This part has nothing to do with your grammar but your ethic. This is a forum, with public conversations and public discourse. You may set your own rules but in the forum, the forums rules trumps all. Now there are no rules on disagreement so long as its not flaming. A question is not an attack on your opinions unless you only view it as an attack. People will ask questions about what ever strikes their curiosity not to "one up" you but to confirm understanding. It is how you answer these questions, no matter how challenging, that forms the opinion of others. To state that someone's questions is "annoying" is rude and dismissive and the foundations of your arguments will crumble if you decide to ignore thought provoking, challenging questions.

Thx for the honest response, and the way you did it, is actually totally fine for me. I try to read through it again later, if I make another try to rewrite my stuff. Also, I agree with you that this quoted paragraph is kinda weirdly written by me.

To share with you my motive behind this stuff: I thought I don't need to be so carefull about that nettiquette part of my text, as it doesn't contain my actual arguments. Now, as like 50% of the responses to my OP are picking on that netiquette part, I just write about it: I know that it has some inner failures, and I want to point out here, that this text is not about teaching anybody, but telling everyone who responds two things: "Hey please, for me it matters how you are talking to me, and the other way around."; and: giving people a light idea why I might ignore them and not respond to them, because of rude or unconstructive talking.

This netiquette part was not so much about teaching, as I am not anyone's parent or a choosen teacher (or a mod), but a reminder and a small guiding sign to show people how this matter can be handled. I just wanted to show people, that it matters to me and I am not some icecool dude who can ignore everyone's insult.

But I am currious: I think we have a different perception of cherrypicking: For me cherrypicking happens in response to longer texts consisting of many paragraphs that each of them make up one statement. As example we take my upper text: He has an initial motivational opinion (I am annoyed about the negative talking, and in my opinion you could try to have some positive thoughts on it), explaining people the reason why I wrote it, and he has then many statements in the following paragraphs. Now I have a statement, consisting of 10 sentences, that have the following structure: Statment S1 based on arguments a1, a2, a3. And some people make it to their personal sport, to respond to a statement in a way that you know "ok he disagrees on all that I've written, not just one statement", and he acts like his opinion is the only rightfull one because his texts sounds really emotional. My problem is the way of disagreeing and not even admiting one good thing about my stuff the opponent could agrees with: He just picks the easiest of the 3 arguments, a2, and then tells me this one sentence is wrong. And on top of that I allways get the feeling in this kind of responses, that the guy didn't even understand my full statement to that one sentence (not even the whole opinion or text). I mean I don't expect people to understand all statements in my text. But they often didn't even recognise the one statement to the one argument they disagree with.

Or do I have the wrong word, when I call this cherrypicking? Taking the easiest argument out of a whole statement and not even recognising the overlying statement just because the one argument out of three or more is wrong in the perception of the opponent.

I mean if someone cherrypicks my stuff I don't even have the motivation to actually respond to him, because I feel like he didn't even read my whole statement (not the whole text, just the overlying statement to the one argument he picks on), when he thinks that disagreeing with that one argument denyies my whole statement. Then I assume he didn't even understand my whole statement and only that one sentence. That's not a very satisfying type of discussion for me and it happens very often if a text is longer than 5 sentences.

For me it's totally fine if someone quotes my text line by line, it's just not fine if they didn't first understand the statement above the argument to this one sentence they respond to. I feel like people on this forum are more emotional instead of logical. They are annoyed by my opinion, and then they pick the one thing they don't like, and make a response that clearly shows me that they didn't even understand my motivations behind my arguments. Those responses show me that they disagree, but I can't argue about their opinion, because it's not bound to logical thinking based on mutal understanding.

And about "the one truth": It doesn't exist. If I say "that's not true" it means it's my opinion. But people on this forum now do the following: A discussion about this matter starts, responses get shared mutually. And then the magic happens by many guys: None of the responses try to understand my opinion, none of them are there admitting one or two things they can agree with me onto. I get a view into anothers person's view onto the matter, but it's in no way a converstation about mutual understanding. He just understands his own truth. Ok. Well I often enough understand your guys view and say "yeah its ok I understand that the power change is upsetting and there will be time needed to refit the systems". But some guys here can't even recoqnise just a small grain of my thoughts as okayish in return. And that's when I say: ok you just see your own one truth and the internet is big enough to find enough people who share this view with you - because those are sharing it with you it must be right no matter if you actually tried to understand the others or not.

I admit I don't understand every argument about why the power change might be bad. But I thought I understand enough from the people, to have an own opinion onto it. And I think that my opinion onto the power change has its strong points too. But if those strong points just get ignored by guys who respond, its for me like the other guys opinion is the one truth no matter what I say. Don't get me wrong: If some guys actually can talk in a nice way about it, like you did, I am actually open to read further about it and try to listen.

 

[Panpiper]

With this impending power system change, every ship I have ever built is scrap. Massive amounts of time I have spent mastering how to build has been wasted. Any time I spend between now and when the changes happen will also be wasted. Any ship I build between now and then will also be scrap. I have not so much as booted up the game since this announcement was first made.

I do not think the existing power system is so broken as to need scrapping. I do not feel that the proposed changes, such as replacing power with heat, will improve the game. I feel VERY much the opposite. It think it is an absolutely dreadful idea that in no way will make the game better. This change is destroying everything ever built in the game till now and doing so to create something that I fully expect will be probably be more broken and anti intuitive than what we currently have.

The OP's insistence that all our work and investment to date being destroyed is of no consequence, is frankly insulting.

 

[nightrune]

I'm quite excited for whatever they come up with, and I keep happily building away.

 

[Shaker]

No point in arguing or coming up with a point here, but ill throw my 2 cents in anyways, even though i know JinM is set in his ways.
Those that are waiting it out were the builders who built systems first and then shelled or built both at the same time. Those that build shells are just hoping that it can still be used after the change.

Another thing that i think we are all forgetting is that the power change will also affect all the other systems that run off it, thrusters/shields/weapons. It will all need a rebalance.

What ive seen so far from lurking around here is that heatboxes are gone in the 2nd proposal, so the original idea has already changed abit

 

[JinM]

The OP's insistence that all our work and investment to date being destroyed is of no consequence, is frankly insulting.

What's an alternative perspective that I could have, that's actually not insulting to old work and still wecloming change in a competetive environment? I just want to know if there is a opinion that's not against the power change, you don't feel is insulting.

In the end, if I would be upset about having to redo old ships, I can't be positive about the power change.

What comes to my mind as first counter to my argument is, that some people say, that the power change should be good, or not happening. This is right, but actually not an argument in itsself as it is just like: I like soup, but only if it tastes good. - Well who doesn't do that? :D So pls tell, is there any way where I can insist on my positive view on the power change without being insulting to old work? :D

I mean maybe I have just picked the wrong words, and I would be happy to listen to better stuff.

 

[terra mining corp.]

Maybe a Hybrid system would work,keep the reactor lines and for smaller ships the new reactors for space savings make fighters useful again!

 

[wizardoftrash]

Maybe a Hybrid system would work,keep the reactor lines and for smaller ships the new reactors for space savings make fighters useful again!

I could even see them keep the current power system as-is, but make the new power system more efficient and higher output.

This means ships built with the new system will perform better, but old ships would perform as well as they did. This provides an incentive to refit the ships without making them useless. Perhaps set up power systems in a way that trying to put both systems on a ship would only give you the power of one of them? (make the systems not stack).

 

[Shaker]

Teired systems, so the current is the basic factory version and the new is the standard/advance factory version