A Solution To Flying Spaghetti Monsters

    G

    GDPR 302420

    Guest
    Okay, It would seem that a group of players are trying to say that balancing based of an entities dimensions should be done over balancing based on how much systems and such it actually has (mass)

    I am going to keep this short and sweet for you so that you can easily understand.



    On the left of this image, this is a "Spaghetti Ship"that Lecic is talking about, it is only 5k mass.

    On the right, we have a Vaygr Empire Cyclops, it is larger in terms of mass then the Spaghetti ship on the left, it has 3x more blocks (systems and armor) yet it is, in terms of dimensions much smaller.


    To everyone who is trying to advocate for balancing based on dimensions, are you unironicly trying to say that the ship in the left should be automaticly better then the one on the right even though it has only 1/3 of the systems (weapons, shields etc etc)?

    If you answered yes... well I got bad news about your overall knoweldge of the game bud.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Coyote27

    Zyrr

    Chronic Troublemaker
    Joined
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages
    847
    Reaction score
    363
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    Little late to this topic, but it's pretty good all around. It doesn't really prevent spaghetti ships but it definitely makes them more of a pain in the ass to build as well as a little less efficient. There's not really anything we can do realistically to equalize normal ships and spaced out ships without a shit ton of extremely serious code additions/reworks. Something is better than nothing.

    Regarding how to quantify ship effectiveness, mass/block count is certainly the most accurate short hand way to tell what a ship is like. When you've played the game long enough, you can predict with reasonable accuracy how much of X Y and Z a ship has based on how much it weighs. In general most people build very similarly, and you can predict even more accurately if you know the player and their style of building. Obviously, the most accurate assessment of a ship would be its mass and block count (mass for general size, block count to compare how much and what type of armor), how much power generation and storage it has (with this you can guess what type of weapons they're using and roughly how large they are/how much damage they do), shield storage and regen including docked entities (how long it will take to drop their shields as well as if you can do damage at all + docked entity "tanking") as well as thrust (how effectively you can control distance).

    That's a lot of information to list if you're not interested in writing a book in casual conversations. Ergo, most people simplify to just mass or block count, or both. Dimensions are very rarely used these days if at all for the simple fact of disparity between dimensions and mass, with mass being a far more important determination of what a ship is like - knowing how many blocks you have is more important than knowing how large they are at maximum on each axis.

    As an example, I have two working ships in my catalog. Both of them are roughly 150m x 150m x 400m lwh. The first of them weighs roughly ~130,000, ~140,000 mass. The second weighs just under 5,000 mass. You see the disparity? That's a 28x difference, which is massive. I'd invite you to show me a 28x difference in anything between two equally massed, working ships.

    Will a 1km long spaghetti monster consistently defeat a 1km long "normal" densely filled minmaxxed ship? (Not rhetorical, I'd like to know the answer and currently don't)
    If not then you can't say that when balancing by length that spaghetti is meta.

    FWIW I 100% agree that balancing ships by mass is a far better method than attempting to balance by dimensions - i.e. it would be silly for duel rules to specify max length/width/depth, or block count, instead of mass.
    Very easily the spaghetti monster will win. In fact, I would be 100% confident in saying that the spaghetti ship won't even be hit by the normal ship. At 1km, you're able to fit in an absolutely absurd amount of power in power 1.0, beyond the realm of reason, if you have enough patience. You can push out an absolutely enormous amount of DPS, more than enough to erase pretty much any ship in the game. Shields don't even matter at that point - with a 1km^3 box to work with, you have enough space to ensure that hits from missiles damage only a handful of blocks and waste most of their damage into empty space, and even hitscan beams will only destroy a pittance of blocks unless the AI accuracy is enormous.

    To put it into perspective - in power 1.0, a well designed 5,000 mass spaghetti ship can do well over 500,000 DPS. More than half of that is power, thrust, shields, tertiaries, etc - let's assume it takes us the full 5,000 mass per 500,000 DPS. Now stack it, since it stacks linearly, until you have the amount of DPS you want. See where this is going? 2,500,000 DPS is enough to handle 98% of ships I've seen under 500,000 mass. To do that I need only 25,000 mass - less, really, if I really wanted to be on a knife's edge of cheese, so to speak.

    Do you guys see how this is a problem yet? The scaling for weapons and power generation so vastly outstrips defensive scaling it's not even amusing. The only defense against this sort of thing is just not to be hit, and how do you achieve that? Space your ship out, which you coincidentally already will do to achieve your power generation. It's a circular train of logic that's revolving around a very specific style of ship.

    If anyone would like a demonstration, I'd be more than happy to set up something to prove I'm not just bullshitting. Or check out my videos or Veilith's videos - premise of these posts are put into action.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    So, all things being equal, the thing with greater dimensions being stronger, how on earth can you say this is mass based balancing at fault?! The ship with the larger dimensions is BETTER.
    I don't say there's any fault with anything anywhere, just that if you use mass to balance/compare ships spaghetti is very meta.


    The amount of mass in a 1km long "normal" ship can vary by tens of thousands just by adding one "layer," for lack of a better word, in a dimension, because of how long the ships are. I don't think it'd be very easy to judge things based on dimensions at this size because, again, dimensions do little to reflect how much stuff a ship actually has on it.

    But the spaghetti monster would probably win as long as it was at least 1/6 the mass of the regular titan. Might even be able to be a bit smaller at that point, maybe 1/8-1/10, given all the massive efficiency issues and SHP debuffs a ship that size has. That's what we generally see at smaller scales.
    If we were to look at several example ships and use an average (perhaps at a smaller length to give more data to use? 500m?) which ship would we expect to win, spaghetti or "normal"?

    Or to rephrase, it we take the spaghetti ship in the video that's been posted a few times recently, and look at a decent existing minmaxxed ship of the same length that already exists, which would (probably) win?

    If (and only if) the the spaghetti couldn't be expected to consistently and repeatedly win then at that point we could accurately say that when balancing ships by length spaghetti isn't meta.
    (Again though, I personally think balancing by mass is by far the superior choice for balancing ships against each other)
    [doublepost=1508999120,1508999014][/doublepost]
    On the left of this image, this is a "Spaghetti Ship"that Lecic is talking about, it is only 5k mass.

    On the right, we have a Vaygr Empire Cyclops, it is larger in terms of mass then the Spaghetti ship on the left, it has 3x more blocks (systems and armor) yet it is, in terms of dimensions much smaller.
    This is good stuff - what are the (approximate) dimensions of each ship, and the mass of the cyclops?
    [doublepost=1508999562][/doublepost]
    As an example, I have two working ships in my catalog. Both of them are roughly 150m x 150m x 400m lwh. The first of them weighs roughly ~130,000, ~140,000 mass. The second weighs just under 5,000 mass. You see the disparity? That's a 28x difference, which is massive. I'd invite you to show me a 28x difference in anything between two equally massed, working ships.
    This suggests to me that based on Lecic's estimate that a spaghetti ship can take out a "normal" ship of 10 times greater mass that a spaghetti ship would be outclassed by a normal ship of the same dimensions, because in that case it would be hugely outmassed...so much so that its inherent advantages wouldn't be enough to overcome the advantages the mass difference gives the other ship?

    Again, for fear of being labelled someone who thinks comparing ships by dimension is a good idea, or being someone who doesn't think spaghetti meta is a real problem: I think it's ridiculous to compare ships by dimension - mass is the only sensible easy comparison variable.

    If anyone would like a demonstration, I'd be more than happy to set up something to prove I'm not just bullshitting. Or check out my videos or Veilith's videos - premise of these posts are put into action.
    That would be awesome - I'd love to see a spaghetti meta ship against a good ship of the same length.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Dire Venom

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Why would appropriating dimensions better with mass empower spaghet shit in any way? To be clear, compare & Balance are not the same word, we can both see a problem in mass vs dimensions relationship (compare), and want to consolidate mass vs dimensions by reducing the efficiency of spacing to a reasonable amount (balance)

    The fact that they're stronger by mass is the comparison, balance is something that should be done to reduce this, but this is pretty obvious I don't think anyone needs to point that out to anybody actually taking the discussion seriously.

    Simple truth is that mass represents the weight that the game actually does enforce balance against as well as the block investment that a player must pay, dimensions is how big its longest line between 2 points is, which would be useful in reality where we have real physics getting in the way of that new f22^3 model.

    It (dimensions) doesn't balance jack and/or shit under SM physics and it's turn rate hit can be entirely built around via rail useage & even more dimension spam, even if you cut its reactors well gee now it's got 2 very long lines instead of one extremely long line, you might notice "very long" is still a bit better than "not very long" in this case. Now what happens when you cut a line that's just "rather lengthy"

    If we're talking ships built to utilize one or more high efficiency reactor lines (main plus docked) then the difference in mass between ships of comparable dimensions could be well into the 100'000% range or more, it would be very easy to take sometimes 1000 times the mass to obliterate said ship with pure volume of fire and say "hey it seems fine when comparing by dims now", it's just not useful info when dimensions aren't a useful comparison in the first place (you pay for mass, you don't pay for dimensions).
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Why would appropriating dimensions better with mass empower spaghet shit in any way? To be clear, compare & Balance are not the same word, we can both see a problem in mass vs dimensions relationship (compare), and want to consolidate mass vs dimensions by reducing the efficiency of spacing to a reasonable amount (balance)

    The fact that they're stronger by mass is the comparison, balance is something that should be done to reduce this, but this is pretty obvious I don't think anyone needs to point that out to anybody actually taking the discussion seriously.
    I agree, and I've said so here many times. I hope you're not suggesting I think otherwise.

    Simple truth is that mass represents the weight that the game actually does enforce balance against as well as the block investment that a player must pay, dimensions is how big its longest line between 2 points is, which would be useful in reality where we have real physics getting in the way of that new f22^3 model.

    It (dimensions) doesn't balance jack and/or shit under SM physics and it's turn rate hit can be entirely built around via rail useage & even more dimension spam, even if you cut its reactors well gee now it's got 2 very long lines instead of one extremely long line, you might notice "very long" is still a bit better than "not very long" in this case. Now what happens when you cut a line that's just "rather lengthy"

    If we're talking ships built to utilize one or more high efficiency reactor lines (main plus docked) then the difference in mass between ships of comparable dimensions could be well into the 100'000% range or more, it would be very easy to take sometimes 1000 times the mass to obliterate said ship with pure volume of fire and say "hey it seems fine when comparing by dims now", it's just not useful info when dimensions aren't a useful comparison in the first place (you pay for mass, you don't pay for dimensions).
    It's useful and interesting info when people (not me) are arguing whether spaghetti meta is "caused" by mass comparison or dimension. I'm sure there's not a single person here who would say spaghetti is "fine now", even if they advocated balancing ships by dimensions (I'm not one of those people either)
     

    Jarraff

    filthy neutral
    Joined
    Aug 28, 2015
    Messages
    111
    Reaction score
    61
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Could a simple structural integrity mechanic be introduced?

    Each block can touch up to six other blocks. You could simply sum up the total number of block connections in a ship and you would have a reasonable idea of how interconnected the ship is.

    Blocks only touching two other blocks could add nothing to structure. And decorative blocks could be exempt from the calculation.

    Or ships without sufficient structural integrity could be nerfed somehow.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    The new shielding system means spaghetti will struggle to shield itself....
     
    Joined
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages
    228
    Reaction score
    145
    agreed - no longer can shields be located in trunk, trailing behind in the next sector :)
     
    Joined
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages
    621
    Reaction score
    448
    The new shielding system means spaghetti will struggle to shield itself....
    Do you really need to shield what can't be hit ?

    Any spaghetti ships could be built with no shields at all, they wouldn't even bother this loss.

    Just do it yourself, you have already all of the materials to build one yourself and shoot at it to understand how stupid that is.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Do you really need to shield what can't be hit ?

    Any spaghetti ships could be built with no shields at all, they wouldn't even bother this loss.

    Just do it yourself, you have already all of the materials to build one yourself and shoot at it to understand how stupid that is.
    I've already asked, but haven't had an answer: do spaghetti meta ships typically have shields?
    (Not "should" or "need", but whether or not they actually have them on existing spaghetti ships)
     

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    I don't say there's any fault with anything anywhere, just that if you use mass to balance/compare ships spaghetti is very meta.
    Yes, when you are comparing mass to mass, spaghetti is very meta. Why? Because of DIMENSIONAL BALANCING. That is my point. Spaghetti being substantially stronger per mass unit because it has much larger dimensions is a clear sign that the balance is, while obviously not entirely dimension based, has a lot of balance invested in it, leading to meta problems like this.

    Could a simple structural integrity mechanic be introduced?

    Each block can touch up to six other blocks. You could simply sum up the total number of block connections in a ship and you would have a reasonable idea of how interconnected the ship is.

    Blocks only touching two other blocks could add nothing to structure. And decorative blocks could be exempt from the calculation.

    Or ships without sufficient structural integrity could be nerfed somehow.
    I want you to think for a second about how much this punishes small ships and many ships with curves and other such features to them that will have many blocks "not counting." This would be extremely frustrating and confusing to a new player, and a pain in the ass for experienced ones.

    Some sort of "structural integrity" system could possibly work, but this is certainly not the way to do it.
     

    Zyrr

    Chronic Troublemaker
    Joined
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages
    847
    Reaction score
    363
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    I don't say there's any fault with anything anywhere, just that if you use mass to balance/compare ships spaghetti is very meta.



    If we were to look at several example ships and use an average (perhaps at a smaller length to give more data to use? 500m?) which ship would we expect to win, spaghetti or "normal"?

    Or to rephrase, it we take the spaghetti ship in the video that's been posted a few times recently, and look at a decent existing minmaxxed ship of the same length that already exists, which would (probably) win?

    If (and only if) the the spaghetti couldn't be expected to consistently and repeatedly win then at that point we could accurately say that when balancing ships by length spaghetti isn't meta.
    (Again though, I personally think balancing by mass is by far the superior choice for balancing ships against each other)
    [doublepost=1508999120,1508999014][/doublepost]

    This is good stuff - what are the (approximate) dimensions of each ship, and the mass of the cyclops?
    [doublepost=1508999562][/doublepost]

    This suggests to me that based on Lecic's estimate that a spaghetti ship can take out a "normal" ship of 10 times greater mass that a spaghetti ship would be outclassed by a normal ship of the same dimensions, because in that case it would be hugely outmassed...so much so that its inherent advantages wouldn't be enough to overcome the advantages the mass difference gives the other ship?

    Again, for fear of being labelled someone who thinks comparing ships by dimension is a good idea, or being someone who doesn't think spaghetti meta is a real problem: I think it's ridiculous to compare ships by dimension - mass is the only sensible easy comparison variable.


    That would be awesome - I'd love to see a spaghetti meta ship against a good ship of the same length.
    10x is a solid estimate. The biggest disparity I've seen so far was a 5k mass spaghetti ship killing a 150k mass normal ship. That really is probably the biggest difference ratio wise I'd expect between a spaghetti ship and a decent normal ship.

    Like I said before, 2.5mil DPS in approximately 25,000 mass is enough to handle most anything under 500,000 mass. A 1km ship we can assume is about 1.5mil mass - north of that likely, but for the sake of discussion, 1.5mil. I would reckon that if this ship is built by anyone from the majority of players, you're going to need approximately 7.5mil-10mil DPS to break it's shields and ergo do damage. Let's say 10mil, again for the sake of discussion. That's 100,000 mass using our earlier metrics. We'll round up and say 150,000 for utilities and redundancy + some form of hull. We're at that 10:1 ratio, and I'd say again, without a doubt, spaghetti ship wins.

    The only limiting factor here for the spaghetti ship is simply how much DPS it needs to break the opponents shield regen. As long as it's making headway, it has all the time in the world. Inhibiting JD is absurdly mass efficient when using logic, c/c stop weapons are very cheap mass wise as well for their potency, etc. And any return fire from the 1km ship will be liable to do absolutely nothing worth of note.

    Regarding shields - it's a normal addition to most spaghetti ships, but merely as a safeguard for the off chance of a beam hit. It's not necessary for it's success, just a quick 'n' easy way to make sure that the one-in-a-billion shot doesn't instantly nuke your weapons computers or docks. Losing the ability to shield the ship in it's entirety isn't a huge deal to something that won't be hit 99 out of 100 fights anyways.
     

    Calhoun

    Part-time God
    Joined
    May 26, 2015
    Messages
    872
    Reaction score
    237
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Thinking Positive
    The new shielding system means spaghetti will struggle to shield itself....
    Why? The shield bubble radius is seemingly based on reactor size, and that's far easier to scale up in a ship that's mostly space than a restricting hull.
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    504
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    Why? The shield bubble radius is seemingly based on reactor size, and that's far easier to scale up in a ship that's mostly space than a restricting hull.
    Wut????
    The ships reactor has no relation to the shield bubbles -_-
     

    Calhoun

    Part-time God
    Joined
    May 26, 2015
    Messages
    872
    Reaction score
    237
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Thinking Positive
    Wut????
    The ships reactor has no relation to the shield bubbles -_-
    The bubbles can be scaled up. Doesn't matter how it's done, the point still stands. Something that is mostly just empty space is going to be able to scale whatever it is up really easily.
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    504
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    The bubbles can be scaled up. Doesn't matter how it's done, the point still stands. Something that is mostly just empty space is going to be able to scale whatever it is up really easily.
    Yes it does matter. I would highly suggest either testing the system yourself or reading the variety of posts that explain how it works first lol XD
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    The bubbles can be scaled up. Doesn't matter how it's done, the point still stands. Something that is mostly just empty space is going to be able to scale whatever it is up really easily.
    It matters very much how it's done, and the point doesn't stand.

    The bubble radius doesn't scale as fast the length of a strand of spaghetti. So building shielded spaghetti doesn't work unless:
    - you build some non-spaghetti sections
    - or you shield your spaghetti with many small weak shield bubbles
    - or you leave some of your ship unshielded
    [doublepost=1509069734,1509069605][/doublepost]
    Yes, when you are comparing mass to mass, spaghetti is very meta. Why? Because of DIMENSIONAL BALANCING. That is my point. Spaghetti being substantially stronger per mass unit because it has much larger dimensions is a clear sign that the balance is, while obviously not entirely dimension based, has a lot of balance invested in it, leading to meta problems like this..
    I suspect that you and the person you were arguing with earlier (I forget who and can't be bothered checking) are just talking about the same thing then, but using the term "balancing" differently.
    [doublepost=1509070544][/doublepost]
    10x is a solid estimate. The biggest disparity I've seen so far was a 5k mass spaghetti ship killing a 150k mass normal ship. That really is probably the biggest difference ratio wise I'd expect between a spaghetti ship and a decent normal ship.

    Like I said before, 2.5mil DPS in approximately 25,000 mass is enough to handle most anything under 500,000 mass. A 1km ship we can assume is about 1.5mil mass - north of that likely, but for the sake of discussion, 1.5mil. I would reckon that if this ship is built by anyone from the majority of players, you're going to need approximately 7.5mil-10mil DPS to break it's shields and ergo do damage. Let's say 10mil, again for the sake of discussion. That's 100,000 mass using our earlier metrics. We'll round up and say 150,000 for utilities and redundancy + some form of hull. We're at that 10:1 ratio, and I'd say again, without a doubt, spaghetti ship wins.

    The only limiting factor here for the spaghetti ship is simply how much DPS it needs to break the opponents shield regen. As long as it's making headway, it has all the time in the world. Inhibiting JD is absurdly mass efficient when using logic, c/c stop weapons are very cheap mass wise as well for their potency, etc. And any return fire from the 1km ship will be liable to do absolutely nothing worth of note.

    Regarding shields - it's a normal addition to most spaghetti ships, but merely as a safeguard for the off chance of a beam hit. It's not necessary for it's success, just a quick 'n' easy way to make sure that the one-in-a-billion shot doesn't instantly nuke your weapons computers or docks. Losing the ability to shield the ship in it's entirety isn't a huge deal to something that won't be hit 99 out of 100 fights anyways.
    This is great info, thanks Zyrr.

    What would you expect to happen between spaghetti ship and a "normal" ship at a mass ratio like the one you mentioned earlier, say 30:1? How about 50:1?
     
    Joined
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages
    1,074
    Reaction score
    504
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Top Forum Contributor
    I don't really get some of this. The issue with these ships in my mind is how they avoid damage which regular ships would likely take.
    If that can be fixed or the concept rendered unfavourable and in-effective then I don't see it being an issue.
    Some way to punish exposed system blocks would be desired as well, without either making the AI deadly accurate or chew up regualr ship designs.

    If system blocks were inately shielded by (x%) armour or spread damage to nearby armour blocks that could help, since most shots shoot right through ships (either they overpen or don't have enough damage to break ADVArmr in oneshot and do very little.
    E.g how damage propergates through a ship.
    Defense really needs a re-work imo, hopefully the shield update can work into it but armour & systems really need a look.


    (Random damage propergation image cause why not)
     

    Zyrr

    Chronic Troublemaker
    Joined
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages
    847
    Reaction score
    363
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Thinking Positive
    • Purchased!
    This is great info, thanks Zyrr.

    What would you expect to happen between spaghetti ship and a "normal" ship at a mass ratio like the one you mentioned earlier, say 30:1? How about 50:1?
    It really all comes down to DPS versus regen - without the ability to do more DPS than regen, even in a best case scenario you only have a few seconds of outage to do damage. At 50:1 you'd have to be facing a poorly designed ship that's either lacking full ion or seriously lacking in the regen department to be able to do meaningful hull damage. While it's certainly possible that a ship would have low enough regen at 50:1, I would say that most of the people I see these days would know better than that.

    Regarding what happens, it's really not all that interesting. A spaghetti ship can rotate very well and its low mass allows for very easy 2.5 TMR + overdrive passive, so really what you'd see is the spaghetti ship strafing around the normal ship. It could either be very close, if the normal ship is long on the X or Z axis, because the normal ship wouldn't have a chance in hell of keeping up with the turn fight, or much further away, at the edge of the spaghetti ship's weapon range, where you're so far away it may as well be impossible to hit a one meter thick strand. The spaghetti ship kites around slowly draining the normal ship's shields until they drop, and then it the normal ship gets cheese grated. Fin.

    Doesn't really matter what mass we're talking about, pretty much follows that pattern every time. It's pretty brainless, honestly - if you see my videos, I'm not even really doing anything besides pressing F to target with turrets and kind of keeping an eye on my range. You can see where I just zone out while strafing or get bored and start doing silly stuff, whereas the other pilot is pretty much 100% engaged with the fight. That's a big part of the problem, too - not only are spaghetti ships infinitely more effective, they're also super easy to use.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic

    Calhoun

    Part-time God
    Joined
    May 26, 2015
    Messages
    872
    Reaction score
    237
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Thinking Positive
    It matters very much how it's done, and the point doesn't stand.

    The bubble radius doesn't scale as fast the length of a strand of spaghetti. So building shielded spaghetti doesn't work unless:
    - you build some non-spaghetti sections
    - or you shield your spaghetti with many small weak shield bubbles
    - or you leave some of your ship unshielded
    No, it doesn't matter at all. Scaling is still far easier in the empty space ship. The spaghetti ship can either simply use single block connections between shield groups or have multiple bubbles. Efficiency falloff? Doesn't matter, the ship only needs shields to protect it in case of an extremely lucky shot. And even if the shields DO go down, then what? You're still left with the massive advantage of being really hard to hit and any hits do a pathetic amount of damage.
     
    Last edited: