Cruiser Command

The funnest, most memorable games of CC I've experienced have all been where both teams have powerdocks. Tense battles that take over 10 minutes to finish, where everybody is busy trying to keep the BC held together and its completely unclear who will win in the end. What makes it all possible is the huge energy income, being able to recharge the BC from 0 to full in 4 minutes, opens up a lot of options for tactics.

These battles are extremely rare though, because powerdocking is a fairly advanced strategy that really separates the newbies from the vets in a bad way. One ship having 190 GW more power is just disgustingly unfair. And it doesn't seem to jive with the newbie mind, I've been yelled at many times for buying multiple chompers, and far too often a newbie will decide to go to the hangar and launch a chomper right before a big battle.

For this reason I propose changing the core stability mechanic. What does core stability have to do with powerdocks? The real benefit of a powerdock is the power advantage, by removing this advantage without removing powerdocking (which I still like), players will have the power to use tactics in BC fights.

My proposal:

• Core output no longer effects core stability increase or decrease.
• Core stability now decreases when the BC has too much power "income", similar to how the BC loses health when it goes too fast. The base limit of power can be something like 350 GW combined power income with both the core and docked ships, I do not know what precisely would be the best number here though.
• Core stability no longer causes blackouts or console disconnects or any of that jazz. The only thing core stability does is reduce the power limit before you start losing core stability (and make you explode if it hits 0%). For example, if stability is at 55%, and the base power limit is 500 GW (a really high power limit), the core will lose stability if power income is over 275 GW. Of course, this means core stability drops will probably cause more core stability drops if power is not paying attention!
• Blackouts and console disconnects and such are now instead caused by the core output being over 100%. Setting the core output to 200% will probably make it very hard to do anything on the BC aside from stockpile power. Setting the core output below 100% does nothing other than reduce power income.
• A new ability is added to the power console: Emergency Core Shutdown. This drops power income to 0 (including from a powerdock) and increases core stability. Restarting the core takes 10 seconds.

The new advantage of powerdocking and core upgrades becomes less blackouts, since you don't have to run the core so high to hit the power limit. Both BCs will always have access to the power they need to execute tactics, though one may suffer through more disconnects than the other. Power management becomes more exciting, and core stability becomes a consistent mechanic rather than a ticking clock in combat.

Marine, i love you as much as i hate this idea, and i really hate this idea. Just want to make it clear nothing personal xD

it would accomplish the same thing with more complexity that isn't needed xD i understand you wanting to make old strategies less effective so new ones can arise but this idea would do two things in my eyes

1. a good power player knows that maxing shields HIGH and using shield boost provides a higher % cushion to incoming damage temporarilly, if you have a cap on how much energy you can exert to start decreasing core having high shields and some weapon energy in combat would constantly drain your core, as well as emergency shielding when the shields drop on top of escaping with high engines and some shields, its a death trap in a bad situation which makes sense but it doesnt need to be so complex

2. if the core output mech is changed to your proposal your losing the logic of it, beating on the core should damage its stability, not just cause consoles to disconnect and power outages, but it should make your core over heat, over perform and begin to fail. the 200% output (DOUBLE energy accumulation) would be insanely over powered early game for rushes. who cares if your disconnecting from your consoles if your parked and gaining energy? you'd cap out your reserves quick, and your weapons would be a below core stability damage rate rushes would be a whole new issue the game would end faster than you'd think

Power docking is somewhat advanced but more people learn about it daily, its not that complicated, and its easy to counter. if your power docking your investing minerals bigtime, minerals that could otherwise be spent on missles, bc upgrades, kinetics. Unless you establish an early economical advantage theres plenty of risk in investing such resources into powering your dock. I say we just focus on spreading the word and teaching new players to be better, for the sake of more intense competition in the future.

i feel the same way, there is nothing wrong with the core. (except maby blackouts, at 25% it should go completely black like in the old versions but you can see small areas with emergency lights are shining on and fires from debris)

I agree with the complexity issue, will probably need to go back to the drawing board with this idea for that reason.

I don't understand your other points, though, Tempest.

1) Right now, it's impossible to generate more than 415 GW of power without causing core stability damage. If we set the energy cap to 415 GW, there is literally no difference to the power guy late game, except for the fact that you won't need a powerdock to reach 415 GW of power. So I don't understand this point at all.

2) If your BC is rated to run 415 GW of power and your core is only outputting 175 GW, it makes sense that it would be "safe" to overclock your core. There are still downsides to overclocking in that your ship becomes unstable, but it does not literally break down and explode just because you overclocked it up to 200 GW. As to this being used early game, that's the point. Both BCs could run their cores at 200%. I don't see how this promotes a rush, because both teams are going to be doing it. It promotes earlier combat, I'll agree with that, but I see that as a good thing-- the BC is the most interesting ship in the game, the sooner it starts being important the better IMO.

Will work on redesigning this. I'm not giving up.

but it works perfectly as is the bc is already a key player, its the upgrades that makes it available in combat not only the power xD the power settings as is are not only functional but logical, everything has a logical reaction to any GW placed into any place and the core stability drop rate is great as it is also xD

I think the big problem here is trying to modify the powerdock by overhauling the core stability. I suggest Dumb Marine creates a new thread about the current problems with a power dock and then we go from there with trying to change it.

I'm with Tempest on this one. Looking at it from a purely electrical standpoint, the current system makes sense. We start with a stock-battlecruiser and a few ships; one can safely 'overclock' the core (raise output) by a slight amount (105%) without causing any harm to the system. However, raising output beyond that point does and SHOULD cause stability issues; faster cycle rate of core increases heat generated, once this thermal energy goes beyond a certain point the core melts down (0% stability). Lowering output allows cooling systems to catch up, bringing stability back to acceptable levels.

Again, from an electrical standpoint, lets look at powerdocking. Basically, each small vessel has its own generator/reactor (we could get into the logistics of what exactly powers them, but the point is that they DO have their own power support) and when docked, these generators keep running. Considering the battlecruiser is a technological wonder, it is not at all surprising that the docked vessels can be integrated into the powergrid; they would be simplified as secondary power sources on an engineer's blueprint, with direct lines to join in series to the main core.

Enough tech. analysis. From a gamer's standpoint, it makes sense that powerdock vs no-powerdock gives an energy advantage to the team that has it. On the other hand, it comes at the cost of time and minerals spent achieving it. Say team one chomper rushed, while team two rushed for broadsides and engine-boost (300 yellow, 150 blue, 75 red for +38 energy// VS// 275 yellow, 50 blue, 350 red). Team two had to mine a few extra minerals, but they have a clear combat advantage. Team 1 gets the advantage if they can avoid combat.

Basically, it's all situational. There is no perfect, win all strategy. But to be clear, and to get back to topic, I must refute the idea of changing the core in the above-mentioned manner. Nothing personal, of course.

Good hunting.

i long ago suggested an advanced console that could be unlocked once about 80% of upgrades from the upgrade console are upgraded. once purchased from the consoles it would basicly upgrade most of everything again that has more then 1 upgrade, (hull, lazer damage upgrades, small power core, ect...) and have a tier 2 set of weps (consider broadside and kinetics tier 1) it basicly takes brings everything to another level and allows more of a late game tech that people can go for. This seems like a far off thing but sense people are freeking out about energy this could be a solution, plus it gives you more to do later on. (also it could also upgrade the refinery just like old times, 10% each up to 150% because there are very few astroids left)