That is kind of how it works in SE - you loose power while the overload exists. This means that for eg if you engage too many thrusters, then you loose power to everything momentarily until the *attempt* to overload is removed (as the power loss will also remove the overload but the power only returns when the excess demand goes away). The big issue that screws everything up here is with shields - they have massive power spikes such that you often end up running your craft at barely 5% power a lot of the time, but while shields are charging and with other weird spikes I see from thrusters, then spikes way over 100% are common on many pre-A12 designs in HVs and SVs whos generators are not actually that powerful (unlike those in CVs and BAs that are arguably excessive for their size at T1+). The SE approach is scary when it happens because of the ship themselves being so fragile - you loose power and you can crash but their flight model and thruster user is FAR superior to what we have here and thus far more predictable in flight and in addition you can easily see in the vessel stats what the total peak power use may be while building whereas in this you cant without manually inspecting and adding it all up. There are numerous failings the approach taken here before you even get to the issue of burnt out generators and the consequent need to rip your vessel appart to get at them to repair them prior to having repair bays. There is no way I can look at this approach and consider it to be anything other than VERY poorly thought out, or deliberately obnoxious. Those who are so quick to condemn me now appear to be taking the time to think this through and now present the same arguments better than I could be bothered too. Good for you for getting around to thinking about it at last - I applaud that.
Ok so to take this topic back to what it should be... The current system doesnt actually need to be "removed" as much as "adjusted" to keep some depth to the game. Instead of exploding which is actually unrealistic for these types of generators, it should either cut power to parts of the ship/base or shut down to "cool off" as safety measures are even old for our current technology let alone a futuristic one. How about instead of arguing removing or staying we present ways to fix it so the game keeps the extra depth? Ways to implement this so it works? Shutting down parts of the base/ship. Complete shutdown to cool off if going over what? 5% over 100%? Any other ideas the developers can actually use? That is not true. Chernobyl was an accident where the cooling water was accidentally evaporated preventing a cooldown and had no explosion...Fukashima was caused by the destruction during a tsunami...and Harrisburg had failures in both secondary systems and right after a primary system and did not have an "explosion". Lets present fixes and not confirmation bias so we get features that actually work for as many people as possible.
That is not even remotely close. During an emergency shutdown test that had been postponed earlier in that day because another reactor went down (for maintenance iirc) so the test which had already started was pushed back until later. The prep for the shutdown test earlier caused a buildup of contaminants in the reactor so when the test was conducted later in the day it gave false readings. A combination of human error and dickheadedness caused the reactor output to drop dangerously low, to compensate the engineers inserted all the graphite control rods to boost reactivity to prevent the reactor from shutting down, causing a chain reaction that caused a core meltdown. The heat burst the coolant pipes to the reactor causing a steam explosion that tore the entire roof off the reactor building and exposed the core to the atmosphere, setting the graphite moderator on fire and pouring radioactive contaminants into the atmosphere. There's an award-winning miniseries about the thing.
I have long thought that there should be two levels of power in this: - Main power - Standby power (for fridges) probably be mean of a battery etc. This way - we would not need to keep setting up signals to implement a standby function on each of our ships, because then main power would actual serve that function (while battery power remains). So then an overload can simply result in cutting out main power until such time as the excess demand is removed. this is a simple non-catastrophic approach. A more complex approach is to have a system of power priority (maybe hard coded?), so certain devices will retain full power at the expense of others. Again, not hard to implement in an efficient manner. A final thought - I think it is reasonable to have an underpowered vehicle. The obvious limit being you cant have everything switched on at once, for eg while flying, then you may have to switch off all non-flight related devices. you may choose to only charge shields while not flying (currently near impossible due to docking behavior), and not be able to recharge the shields in flight. In SE for eg I use to have a number of small vehicles that lacked the power to recharge their shields so they could only charge their shields while docked and under base supplied power (which we unfortunately lack in EGS along with batteries). In combat they couldn't recharge but then they were not intended for combat, just pest/impact protection. That are many way to do this in a reasonable manner that would be compatible with the way an advance civilization would most likely do this in reality. Another thing in SE, we had reactors and batteries. I used to use batteries to deal with peak power demands (momentary thruster peaks, or a momentary shield recharge etc) while reactors dealt with ongoing continuous power demands. Many people have asks for batteries and base supplied power to recharge them in this, but we lack a docking connector. Wireless power systems exist today in real life (albeit for phones watches etc), so there isn't really a need for a docking connector in EGS anyway to supply power to small ships. There are many ways that this can be done in a manner that increase ship design and use options and open up the choice of compromise we are willing to make as ship designers that keep to a reasonable facimile of a plausible reality. However it requires some thought on the part of the devs on how to shape the presented technology in an overall consistent manner that reinforces an overall lore, rather than adding isolated and unrelated cases without a broader context which seems to be an increasingly common practice with them - ie band aids top deal with symptoms - not solutions.
I thank you for not moving a solution forward and continuing to try to keep something that will divide the community? Now thats the way to do it. Great ideas. Would add depth and detail to gameplay and shouldnt be hard to implement.
Actually there was only one or two helpful suggestions. As with all internet forums most people are just useless, patronizing, and self centered. I am glad to have ignored a bunch. I intend to only use my designs in my "modified game" from now on and the forums and workshop be damned. So many people just trying to force people to do what they want(and then project that you are the whiner), well have fun with that I will ignore you. I will play the game and adjust(with modding) for the extremely poor game balancing of Eleon studios. This game will die soon, as they don't seem to care about players or balancing. They just added the damage because they were so butt hurt over their CPU rejection and wanted revenge IMO. Anyways I only intend to play the game moded from here on out so no more suggestions or feed back from me(they just ignore it anyway). The forums and the game developer are mostly toxic IMO . I usually have most of the game options turned off as I never agreed with them anyways. I would like to fix things without going into the config files, but I guess that is not an option. The rest of the game is beautiful, except for the game playing balance. The game is way to difficult because there are too many things to damage you, micro manage, and is overly complex. No amount of "tutorial" will fix this and the sycophant fan boies will only make this game unplayable by anyone but themselves.
I read your comment as, I am sure of it, did @Hummel-o-War, as he reads all. He stated more than once that reading and not answering it does not mean ELEON don't listen to what Tester are saying. But this is your choice. On a personal note and your way to insult me and many other thorough Testers... ...in which drawer do I shove you...ah, yes, that's the one. That with the letters Soothsayer on it, and there you are in good company.
"I'm mad because I'm trying to run my ship on AAA batteries and it doesn't work. So mad I'm shaking." Give me a break.
It's some of these "sycophant" players that you insult who fought for the ability for you to mod the game the way you want. It's the devs who "want revenge" who gave you access to the internal configs. It's the players who you accuse of being "useless" "patronizing" and "self centered" who have tried to offer their help with their knowledge and experience. But thanks for insulting myself and everyone who disagreed with you. One of the best updates the game has had and it hasn't even been in experimental a week and already someone goes into an insult laden rant about how terrible it is because of one feature they don't like. I actually think it should be a game option that can be disabled, but not because of the insulting rant you posted.
In real life we have an estimated power usage on what any device uses. We also have things like Surge Protectors and Circuit Breakers in a Fuse Box to prevent things exploding. Just saying..... We took the guesswork out of "will it explode" more than 50 years ago. Perhaps some sort of Circuit Breakers and a Fuse box for CV's, SV's, HV's & Bases. would be the answer.
The balance is way off with the generator overload, the teleport uses more energy then my entire ship, and the shield on my SV is at 480% overload with 3 large generators fitted so I need to put 15 generators on a a SV plus the CPU its just stupid.
Its called Fuses. Humans use them since long time. Also a reactor on overload will not explode like cars in Hollywood movies. From the gameplayside i would say its a moment when many players turn off the game. Doesnt matter if they would turn off the game anyways soon but this little moment couldt show a significant increase.
Go back to the Posting of @Vermillion or take sentences into account where people drive their power source OVER the safety limit risking the overheating which leads to structural damage. The Stress for the Material is too much and it starts, even today, with failing Ball Bearings! (if rotating Parts are in in question). B.E.EEE from Sri Sairam Institute of Technology (2018) By running the generator above rated speed given to it using prime mover to generate current 10 times above rated current we can explode it also a good explanation Electrical Engineer (2012-present) In turbo generators sets, hydrogen is often used to cool the generator and lower the resistance between the rotor and stator, both of which in turn increase the efficiency of the generator. The purity of the hydrogen used in the generator is at least 95%. If the purity of the hydrogen in the generator drops below 75%, there is an increased risk of an explosion if an electrical fault were to occur in the generator. H2 leaks from the generator due to a faulty Seal Oil system or leaks in the H2 system within close proximity to the generator are also at risk of creating an explosion that can damage or destroy a generator.
This guy has a point. You all do but this guy sees the balance between gameplay and depth (depth being overly realistic). So here is what I hope to make as a concise summary after working on vessel power plants as an engineer for 10 years and now flying different ones through the sky today in the most technologically advanced airliners (that don't have hull shields): 1. The generator damage feature is cool and adds depth to the game. And it's simple enough to understand, don't go over 100%, so those that aren't technically inclined can still enjoy designing a vessel in this game. 2. If designed properly, let's say your ship operates just under 100% generator load (power) with full thrust on a 1ish G planet and full fuel/cargo. And let's say your ship has 2 generators. Perfect! You designed your ship well! Now, lets say you add a hull shield and....wait, what! Why is my ship at 300% power when the shield is charging?! <---see the problem? No? Let's discuss... So take that hypothetical ship and remove all that cargo/extra weight, reduce thrusters, go to a planet with low G...now what? Put on the hull shield and it's still a huge generator load (while charging). Now we've seen the problem. Do I still need 5 or more generators on a ship that was perfectly capable with 2 before the shield got turned on? That seems unreasonable...unless the idea is to make gameplay more difficult and you more vulnerable. In other words, you can afford to put the shield on your tank HV because it's meant for battle and you'll invest in the extra generators to compensate. But maybe it's not practical to have a shield on the CV or SV that carries your tank into the playfield. Is that the intent? Or should everything be able to have a shield? Let's ask @Hummel-o-War … Is the gen overload meant to limit use of shields (given the charging cycle)? Or will the shield charge cycle be brought down to a more reasonable generator power requirement to avoid damaging the generator, given the new feature? P.S. - I do agree with everyone that mentions protections. Most of the time, with today's technology, the generator should just shut down...however, that doesn't mean it might not have been damaged and likely needs some maintenance. But I only expect so much realism out of a video game otherwise it would be like going to work!
I find explosions amusing. Edit: shield recharge is the big culprit here. you can charge shields pre-launch, but if you lose shield energy in battle, your energy use will spike (to re-charge them). causing a chain reaction on your generators if you're at the borderline (exploding them one by one). so if you warp right into a space station you'll have a hard time escaping at full thruster and shield trying to recharge. AND you can't warp because of the new rule about warping after receiving damage. i still find explosions amusing. but yes it has not been thought through properly.
Good point about the battle aspect. It seems, as of build 2883 they just released, they have already reduced the shield charge power a bit. A few days ago we needed 5 gens on an HV to charge the shield without overload/overpower. Today, it's only 3, which is much more reasonable in general. Make a battle capable tank with 4 gens, spaced out so if one blows they don't damage each other and you're good to go! That seems more reasonable. It will certainly make taking down drone bases more challenging!
