5.025 Looks Good!

[Orelius]

My mouth waters over the knowledge requirement decreases.  Mark I HBCS are going to be pretty amazing now.

[TechSY730]

With the change to make non-forcefield modules invincible, two things.

1. They still die when their parent dies, right? I'm pretty sure you already tested this obvious case, but just checking.
2. Can you still scrap a module individually> Sometimes, especially with the spire structures, you want to be able to scrap a module to replace it with something else.

[keith.lamothe]

1. They still die when their parent dies, right? I'm pretty sure you already tested this obvious case, but just checking.

Yes, I tested it.  Yes, they still die   Invincible things can actually die, just not through the normal means.

2. Can you still scrap a module individually> Sometimes, especially with the spire structures, you want to be able to scrap a module to replace it with something else.

Yep, that will still work

[Wingflier]

Just saw the Parasite Starship changes!  Can't wait <3

[Spikey00]

The riot starship shield modules is a very substantial buff, considering you get multiple modules on each of the starships; it would be possible to run with a +50m HP shield ball with full cap.

Parasite starship buff is relatively promising--we'll see in-game. 


Thanks for the work, Keith.

[keith.lamothe]

The riot starship shield modules is a very substantial buff, considering you get multiple modules on each of the starships; it would be possible to run with a +50m HP shield ball with full cap.

Yea, we'll see.  They're pretty small-radius as shields go, and that's a lot of knowledge to pay for that much shield (equivalent to two and a half mkI ff gens; you start the game able to build 10 of those) if that's the main thing you get from it (with no shotguns or tazers they lose a lot of their offensive use).

Thanks for the work, Keith.

My pleasure

[Spikey00]

Actually, with this change:

On the same note, the "auto build energy reactor" toggles on the CTRLS window (both galaxy-wide and per-planet) have been converted to sliders allowing you to specifying that more than one should be auto-built. If both the galaxy-wide one and a per-planet one are greater than zero, that planet will auto-build the higher of the two numbers (but not the sum, unlike with engineers).

Would it be possible to have the bottom toolbar automatically sort the inefficient reactors to the top, so I can just rapidly click to disable them? 

[keith.lamothe]

Actually, with this change:

On the same note, the "auto build energy reactor" toggles on the CTRLS window (both galaxy-wide and per-planet) have been converted to sliders allowing you to specifying that more than one should be auto-built. If both the galaxy-wide one and a per-planet one are greater than zero, that planet will auto-build the higher of the two numbers (but not the sum, unlike with engineers).

Would it be possible to have the bottom toolbar automatically sort the inefficient reactors to the top, so I can just rapidly click to disable them?

Probably possible, but doesn't the "put lowest efficiency reactor into low power mode" keybind already do what you'd want to do there?

[Cyborg]

Probably possible, but doesn't the "put lowest efficiency reactor into low power mode" keybind already do what you'd want to do there?

Sometimes. A lot of times, when you ask for more energy, it gives you the most resources reactor, not necessarily the reactor that would satisfy your needs. For example, if you are low on power and ask for more, it will turn on a Mark 3, when really you only need a Mark 2. To actually get the efficiency, you need to bang on the key to expand your power up through Mark 3 and then decrease all the way back down to get the optimum power level. Sometimes it requires manual intervention.

[Spikey00]

Actually, with this change:

On the same note, the "auto build energy reactor" toggles on the CTRLS window (both galaxy-wide and per-planet) have been converted to sliders allowing you to specifying that more than one should be auto-built. If both the galaxy-wide one and a per-planet one are greater than zero, that planet will auto-build the higher of the two numbers (but not the sum, unlike with engineers).

Would it be possible to have the bottom toolbar automatically sort the inefficient reactors to the top, so I can just rapidly click to disable them?

Probably possible, but doesn't the "put lowest efficiency reactor into low power mode" keybind already do what you'd want to do there?

Didn't notice there was a keybind for it now (who looks through that medusa of a control menu?  Bleagh!), but it would still be helpful for the manual toolbar users, as Cyborg says. 

[keith.lamothe]

Probably possible, but doesn't the "put lowest efficiency reactor into low power mode" keybind already do what you'd want to do there?

Sometimes. A lot of times, when you ask for more energy, it gives you the most resources reactor, not necessarily the reactor that would satisfy your needs. For example, if you are low on power and ask for more, it will turn on a Mark 3, when really you only need a Mark 2. To actually get the efficiency, you need to bang on the key to expand your power up through Mark 3 and then decrease all the way back down to get the optimum power level. Sometimes it requires manual intervention.

Hmm, it's picking a mark 3 over a mark 2 when they would be exactly the same m+c/e ratio?  If you have a save of that, I may be able to remedy it.

Ah, I think I get it: the mk3 has a better ratio in the particular case, but for the amount you actually need at that moment the mk2 would be enough, and even at the mk2's worse (in that case) ratio the total m+c cost would be less and you'd still get enough e.  Is that what's going on?

[PokerChen]

Hmmmm... not quite the way I'm seeing the keybind. My energy hamster sorts it all into mark-IIs -> mark-Is -> mark-IIIs. There's a key-banging session when you just run out of mark-IIs and are turning on your mark-Is? Or are we talking now about multiple reactors on a planet, which changes the ratio?

[Cyborg]

Hmm, it's picking a mark 3 over a mark 2 when they would be exactly the same m+c/e ratio?  If you have a save of that, I may be able to remedy it.

Ah, I think I get it: the mk3 has a better ratio in the particular case, but for the amount you actually need at that moment the mk2 would be enough, and even at the mk2's worse (in that case) ratio the total m+c cost would be less and you'd still get enough e.  Is that what's going on?

The originating threadnaught:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,8712.60.html

The relevant scenario:

Here is the chart, once again:

metal	Crystal	power	Rate(power per resource)
2	2	5000	1250
15	15	40,000	1333
40	40	80,000	1000

If your power bill is 80,000, you need to come up with a way that involves turning reactors on and off to pay that bill. How do you do it?

A novice player may just turn on the Mark three reactor. This would be incorrect. Why? Because the efficiency rating is the lowest on the chart, meaning you are spending 40/40. I echo the other poster's concern that the efficiencies are unintuitive, not that it matters much because there's only three options and there's only one right answer anyways.

The answer is to turn on two Mark 2 reactors. You would then be spending 30/30. At the end of the time unit, the bill is paid no matter the order you turn on reactors, but one way is clearly better than the other, and it is very obvious at that. If you were to make it an elementary school word problem, select the least amount of coins to add up to one dollar.

This is the scenario. The reason why you have to do the key-banging is because the algorithm doesn't take into account that the Mark 3 is always the least efficient. It would help if you twiddled reactors 1 and 2 before you touch 3.

Or we could just solve this whole thing with automated energy management. 

[keith.lamothe]

Or we could just solve this whole thing with automated energy management. 

All auto energy management thing would be is "while I'm short on power, hit the give-me-the-most-efficient-reactor button; while I'm excess on power, hit the drop-the-least-efficient-reactor button" so if the logic for those isn't doing what you want then the auto wouldn't do it either

[TechSY730]

Currently, the "turn on a reactor button" currently seeks (or at least is supposed to seek) the most resource effecient reactor when it turns on, keeping in mind the poor efficiency due to multiple reactors on same planet effect. However, what if there is a tie for most efficient, and due to poor efficiency shenanigans, it happens that the tie is between a Mk. III or a poor efficiency (when turned on) Mk. II. Which one should it choose?

Well, IMO, the tie breaker between two power reactors of the same efficiency should be the reactor that costs less per second to keep on. In the case mentioned above, the poor efficiency Mk. II reactor would be turned on under this logic. Possibly, if ties with efficiency are very rare, maybe if the efficiencies are within 5% (or something) of each other, just call it a tie and use the tie breaker logic.



On a related note, an oversight in the "find reactor to turn off" logic. Currently it seeks to turn off the least efficient reactor. Problem is, if it can't afford to turn it off (like a Mk. III and turning it off would bring energy into the negatives), it doesn't try the second least efficient reactor, rather, it just gives up.