1. This forum is obsolete and read-only. Feel free to contact us at support.keenswh.com

manuall power prioritization

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Artemis40A4, Jan 21, 2016.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Artemis40A4

    Artemis40A4 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    54
    At the moment the DEVS and the players have a problem.

    No matter how you make the priority chain for the power blocks it is wrong.
    If you use:
    Solar - battery - reactor
    Batteries do not consume good uranium if the reactors are just for backup. But some constructions without solarcells like the Stinging Adversary can not reacharge the batterys.

    If you use:
    Solar - reactor - battery
    Batterys are always charged but you use up the uranium befor the batterys are empty

    and so on and so on. There is always a ship that needs batteries not charged from the reactors and one that needs it.

    Therefor my idea:
    Give each powersource a new button to prioritize it. I would suspect a dropdown with the numbers 1 to 6. (That gives you a little room) So every ship can arange its powersources as needed.

    So if you want power to be drawn from solarcells first and reactors not to charge batteries ever you give Solarcells - 1, Batteries - 2, Reactors - 3 If you want one battery to be allways charged as a last resort you could give that single one a 4.

    Examlpes:
    You have a military ship that is running on uranium and has some batteries for backup. No problem: Reactors-1, Batteries-2
    You have a eco ship that has a nuclear reactor just for emergency backup but its manuall activation is not possible/ to slow? - No Problem. Solar-1, Batteries-2, Reactor-3

    I hope the idea is easy enought discribed. If not just ask.

    And now to all how like it say so and all how donĀ“t say so too and if possible tell me why.
     
    • Agree Agree x 15
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Captain Broadstairs

    Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Sounds good to me, Full Control of power systems can only help players. Don't want to use it? Leave it in default mode, for the rest of us we'll make use of priority lists and be happier for it.

    Going further i'd like to have full control of what drains what. Power sources should be assignable to a specific power channel, and all blocks can be assigned a channel from which to draw power
    (Batteries would have both options, draw from channel A, output on channel B ) . This would allow me to set up a specific power loop for critical systems. For example, a set of batteries that only power the weapons systems so matter how many reactors are active or how much power the thrusters are consuming, my weapons are always fully charged and ready to go, and these batteries trickle charge from the main reactors
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  3. discodancepant

    discodancepant Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    72
    I like both of these ideas. Combined in a tab similar to inventory tab except for power.

    Power producers would have priority of production and channel selection.

    1)Power consumers would have priority of cosumption and channel selection.
    2)Batteries which are both would just have both.
    3)The options for channel selection are either very limited or a little complex:

    You have let's say four boxes that you can check, each one corresponding to a power channel. Obviously you can select multiple channels. Another field at the end of the row would be the base-2 number equivalent of that binary selection for advanced users who want more channels and know how binary to base-2 works.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. sioxernic

    sioxernic Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,535
    Support as well.
     
    • Late Late x 1
  5. Krougal

    Krougal Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,012
    I posted a similar idea a month ago.
    It was even simpler and less work for them, it didn't get much support.
    @Grit Breather posted another suggestion around the same time about how to fix this situation, which was more involved, it also didn't get much support.
    One thing is for sure, they need to do something about it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Jetfire

    Jetfire Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21
    Lego Rock Raiders was a game that had a prioritisation system. In this game, you had workers which could perform a number of different tasks, such as collect resources, construct buildings and operate vehicles. Being able to prioritise tasks was very important as the workers would automatically perform them, but were quite derpy. This game handled that by having a dedicated drop-down priorities tab available at any time.
    (See https://www.rockraidersunited.com/me...humb/8/88/Priorities.jpg/180px-Priorities.jpg)

    Pros:
    - All possible tasks & priorities were in one location, with easy access.
    - The order could be easily obtained from a quick glance.
    - Tasks could be disabled entirely.

    Cons:
    - Sub-tasks couldn't be separately controlled.

    Obviously, the SE case is a bit different, but I leave my 5c here for ideas and inspiration.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    I'm fairly sure you could also click on a raider and tell him to do something.
     
  8. Jetfire

    Jetfire Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    21
    You could, but when you have 10 or 20 rock raiders wandering over the whole map, commanding them individually is a pain (especially since they don't obey you half the time :woot:). By analogy, that would be the equivalent to manually turning off and on components to manage power.
     
  9. dragon boy

    dragon boy Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    103
    I like the idea, I think it would be nice if didn't need a programing block for power management.
     
  10. discodancepant

    discodancepant Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    72
    These suggestions are only going to be implemented in one of two ways (that I see):

    1) more people comment/agree with it
    2) devs finish fixing all other high priority bugs.

    Is this a high priority issue or not?
     
  11. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    it's mostly an issue which would be received well and should not be to hard to implement.
     
  12. Krougal

    Krougal Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,012
    Well, I'm partial to my own suggestion (imagine that), which really, should be pretty quick and easy to implement, and really shouldn't impact anyone negatively (nobody would have to change how they do anything or learn any new system, hell most people wouldn't even notice). Actually it's just a simpler less featured version of this.

    At this point though, yeah I don't really care which of these suggestions or pieces they incorporate, as long as they do something.
     
  13. discodancepant

    discodancepant Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    72
    Yeah true, I do want something to be done, but I'm worried if they don't do it in a way that offers a lot of control like I mentioned it won't get added. Like I said though there would be default settings that some users who don't care about it would never have to change.
     
  14. Ame

    Ame Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    74
    I'd like a system similar to the one used in Elite Dangerous; each power user would have a priority. If there is insufficient power for any reason to power the entire grid, the power users with the lowest priority would be turned off, either automaticaly or manually. Perhaps this functionality could be put into a new block (the power management block, or something like that); that way players that want to have this functionality can build the block and those that don't can ignore it and the power system would behave as it does now (not enough power in the grid means everything dies). As for the power suppliers (solar, batteries, and reactors), they could have a system like the one described in the OP; allowing players to set up multiple different sources for different purposes (reffer to OP for further details).

    As an example, you have a platform on an earth-like planet that gets most of it's power from solar with a number of batteries to power everything during the night and a reactor for emergencies. The platform itself is pretty basic, a refinery, assembler, med bay, oxygen generator, and a spotlight to light the work area. Let's say that all of the batteries are discharged and you're fresh out of uranium, but there's a source of it not too far away; while you go to mine some, you use a small grid battery attached to the platform to provide power. You would need the refinery to turn the uranium ore into something usable in the reactor, so that should have a high priority such as 2. The med bay is very important in case the worst does happen, so that should get top priority (1). Assembler would not be as important as the refinery or med bay, and the oxygen generator is more of a "would be nice" item. I would put the assembler and spotlight (since if you're working on a ship, you'll probably need components for it) at priority 3 and the oxygen generator at 4.

    So, with one small grid battery, it should be able to power a refinery and a med bay no problem. However, the assembler would likely be too much; so anything priority level 3 or below would be turned off. I know this small scale example is pretty trivial ("You could just manually turn off the blocks you don't want." -Naysayer), but imagine what would happen when you have more power loads on a grid; say 9 refineries, 20 assemblers, 10 oxygen generators, and a couple hundred lights. Do you really want to turn all of those blocks off by hand?

    TLDR: I approve of a power management system in the stock game (i.e: no mods or special programs).
     
  15. Leaping Tortoise

    Leaping Tortoise Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    212
    This has been suggested before (don't worry, I'm not going to be "that guy") and I really like the idea, both for control over power generating blocks and power draining blocks.

    My issue at the moment (for ships) is that generally speaking you build your power plants requirement based almost entirely on thrust. Most ships I build will have the majority of power used by thrusters, nothing else even comes close. If there were more power hungry blocks/general evening out of power consumption then this would move from a good idea to a necessity.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Captain Broadstairs

    Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    Agreed, its not so much a neccessity as it stands now.

    I did think of one reason to have separate power drains , Charging Jump drives. Thats the one time i can think of that a ship incurs a sudden increase in power draw, and its frustrating to need to build the ships power output in such a manor that the drives can be charged without overloading the ship. Maybe having separate channels would mitigate this issue, as the jump drives wouldn't be able to syphon power away from the thrusters.

    But the jump drives don;t take long to charge so its hardly a massive issue
     
  17. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    what I think would be useful is a way to throttle blocks, an energy storage method which is 100% efficient but "leaks" over time and a rework of the reactors making them take time to change their output and require a start-up cost. this last one in order to make power management more than just putting down blocks untill the thing stops saying overload while using your dampeners in three directions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. Captain Broadstairs

    Captain Broadstairs Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    469
    I approve anything that will add reasonable engineering themed challenge to the game, it irks me that power management basically comes down to " add reactors till the red light stops coming on "
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. SpartanRedSand

    SpartanRedSand Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    This would be wonderful to have in game
     
  20. MrKicker

    MrKicker Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    I think that manual engergy prioritization is a must. All my equipment seems to take power from my batteries before my solar pannels, resulting in them being drained during the day. I would very much like to be able to correct this.
     
  21. Vicizlat

    Vicizlat Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    174
    I love the idea of a power management tab described above. Or in the form of a block which would basically do the same function but you would be required to build a dedicated block to handle the power. This can also be expanded so for a very large grid you might need more than one block to manage the power.

    What I would like to add to that is some sort of a grid priority. So when you dock your ship to your station (or small ship to large ship) you know which one will drain power and which will provide it. This way you could set your stations batteries to charge only from solar panels but the small ship batteries could recharge from the station batteries or even the station's reactor without affecting the whole connected grid.

    Also I think it was mentioned before but I would love to see an option to set a power source to be used only by a specific consumer. This way you could make a safe room with a medbay and a battery that in normal conditions will take power from the base but if there is no power the battery will give power only to the medbay. Of course this could have many other uses depending on everyone's personal preference. There are so many possibilities if implemented...
     
  22. plaYer2k

    plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,160
    Well, there have been plenty of suggestions for that already.

    Here is my ideal:

    The issue is though that there hardly can be a method that works as everyone would prefer.

    There are for example blocks of the same type (turrets) where some shall have a higher priority than others.
    Thus in the end you may have to define a power priority for every block and every power source aswell as defaults for blocktypes.
    Such a system would however become so overcomplicated for most users that they probably would use them right anymore.
     
  23. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    what if
    1. groups would also be displayed in the management screen. group settings would override block settings
    2. players would be able to "expand" the block types giving them a list of the individual blocks.
    3. you could make "power groups" which would only have any meaning in the management screen. they can but don't have to be assigned a common priority like normal groups. but they can also be hidden in order to prevent cluttering.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  24. SpartanRedSand

    SpartanRedSand Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    63
    that could work very well and i like that idea
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.