Nth idea for a better power update

[JinM]

I think this is a good idea.

 

[Captain Fortius]

If the lack of armor blocks on these long system sticks is your only concern, then it's not a bad suggestion. But from what I can see, you're concerned about the system encouraging you to make long, one dimensional sticks to get the most power. In that case, your suggestion doesn't work.

My proposal would set a maximum power (and systems) to mass ratio. Pretty much as your current plan seems to set a maximum power-to-length ratio (even if it's a soft-cap). Except your power needs are not dictated by your dimensions but your block count!

That's my idea. And it doesn't even have to happen.
But I'd rather if these stabilizers didn't make it into the final release. At least not in their current, distance based form.

(as for placing them in predictable spots in my examples; you need them to be on separate ends of the longest axis of your ship, so not a lot of options there.)

Nicely presented thoughts and ideas ... but i disagree with the whole ship-mass=power thing (also in other wrong-headed thread about 'dimensional bane'...)

Bigger/heavier ships having more power in a linear and predicable way ? I think that is kinda boring, and lacking 'edges'/ traction for performance-variety and complex-designs....

Not necessarily. Say you build a bigger hull. You can carry more systems now. But you're free to fill it with whatever you like, not just power. Maybe you used a single reactor block and all the rest is shields, or any possible combination.

 

[kulbolen]

You're thinking in length when you should think in mass or block count.

they dont get it. they really think if they yell it enough times, itll be different.

My proposal would set a predictable power (and systems) to mass ratio. There'd be still plenty of room for customization. One could get a worse ratio in favour of redundancy. One could invest heavily in thrusters at the expense of shields, while the other guy might be slow but have powerful cannons, and yes, you can just slap a big chunk of armor on your ship to allow fitting more systems.

if the systems were properly bstat weighted against each other, this is already a thing... your ship cant have more blocks than it has blocks, so it automatically balances itself. if someone wants disproportionately high power, they have disproportionately low something else... theres no need to create these dumbass arbitrary systems when if you build it right theyll create themselves.

 

[Jojomo]

Thats very numbers dependent, nor is there any guarantee it will be one solid hull and not two.

Yes, it's all about numbers, and it isn't true for every conceivable situation (e.g. stabilisers and reactor each in their own sub-hull without a connection, like you suggest).

(Slightly OT but I really hope conduit becomes required between reactor and stabilisers)

I have never met a pvp builder who was overly concerned with increasing hull weight when increasing dimensions, as there are some benefits to it besides power. I don't believe that this point is very legitimate for a competent pvp builder, if they want to make a brick they won't care about its hull size.

Your point isn't entirely clear to me - do you care about mass when designing your pvp ships? Do you care about unnecessary length?
Because what I'm saying (and numbers say) is that (with some exceptions) using a lower stabiliser efficiency can save you both, without costing you power.

I don't have SM here so I can't check to see required separation distances, but if we use this example: a 20x20x20 reactor (800k e/s) and the same size/shape stabiliser group placed at "optimal distance" where stabiliser distance is 100% and then enclose them together in a single minimal cuboid hull one layer thick of AA, every metre of length you drop will save you 21 mass (84 AA blocks). Your stabilisers currently weight 8000x0.4=3200 mass.



To reduce your stabiliser efficiency to 50% while maintaining 100% reactor stabilisation you need to double your stabiliser mass to 3200 x 2 = 6400.
To offset the 3200 stabiliser mass increase you need to reduce your length by 3200/21 = 153 metres, while still maintaining a stabiliser efficiency of 50% or more

Like I said I don't have SM here to check, but I'm fairly certain for an 800k reactor you can save 153 metres of length without your stabiliser efficiency dropping below 50%.

That's just a single example demonstrating the concept. You can probably (just guessing at this point) go down to 30% efficiency, or even 20% and still come out ahead if armoured more heavily.

 

[Zoolimar]

I don't have SM here so I can't check to see required separation distances, but if we use this example: a 20x20x20 reactor (800k e/s) and the same size/shape stabiliser group placed at "optimal distance" where stabiliser distance is 100% and then enclose them together in a single minimal cuboid hull one layer thick of AA, every metre of length you drop will save you 11 mass (44 AA blocks). Your stabilisers currently weight 800x0.4=3200 mass.

What is the point of enclosing empty space in armor ? You could cut down at least 2/3 of armor on that picture and don't lose much in the defense department. Or even gain, considering that you'll be able to fit many more systems. Like say shields.

EDIT:
Additionally amount of armor that you saved weights 630 against the 3200 increase in mass of stabilisers.

 

[Jojomo]

What is the point of enclosing empty space in armor ? You could cut down at least 2/3 of armor on that picture and don't lose much in the defense department.

I have no idea, don't ask me. (Why didn't you ask the op that same question about his image that appears to show a very long hull?)
Presumably you'll be putting systems in that space between reactor and stabilisers. The image isn't a full ship, it's only to visualise the concept.

On a related note I hope the devs will prevent separate non continuous shells for reactor and stabilisers somehow.

Oreven gain, considering that you'll be able to fit many more systems. Like say shields.

Sounds like you've just answered your own question from above....

EDIT:
Additionally amount of armor that you saved weights 630 against the 3200 increase in mass of stabilisers.

Yes, thanks, I somehow managed to compound two large errors together in that post: although I wrote 20^3 I was thinking 10^3, and I also managed to leave off a zero....Fixed now.

 

[Non]

do you care about mass when designing your pvp ships? Do you care about unnecessary length?

Yes I care about mass, no I don't care about length. At most I would have two hulls totaling 5% of my ships mass, cutting out half of that to decrease my length and add 50% to my stabilizer size, which may make up nearly 15-20% of my ship already is never going to be worth it.

 

[Jojomo]

Yes I care about mass, no I don't care about length. At most I would have two hulls totaling 5% of my ships mass, cutting out half of that to decrease my length and add 50% to my stabilizer size, which may make up nearly 15-20% of my ship already is never going to be worth it.

Obviously,a s I've already said (why is it necessary to say it again?) this mechanic is not applicable if you split your hull into two separate sub hulls.

15% stabilisers? Sounds very high...

 

[Non]

15% stabilisers? Sounds very high...

Could be a little high, but I go damage heavy at the expense of everything else, so I put a lot of power into my ships. On my current wip 200k The power system (aux and capacity blocks) probably makes up 20% of my ship. In the case of new power, assuming reactors and stabilizers would need to be roughly equal, stabilizers would make up maybe 10% of the ship. So 15% may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the ship I just mentioned is nowhere near being my most damage heavy ship, I do have others with a higher ratio of reactor mass to total ship mass.

 

[Zoolimar]

I have no idea, don't ask me. (Why didn't you ask the op that same question about his image that appears to show a very long hull?)

Op doesn't specify that it will be enclosed in advanced armor. There are many things that you can put in between.

Yes, thanks, I somehow managed to compound two large errors together in that post: although I wrote 20^3 I was thinking 10^3, and I also managed to leave off a zero....Fixed now.

If I didn't mess up the math then using ineffective stabilisers is worth it only under 1750 of reactor size. The bigger reactor becomes after that the more you lose by trying to cut your stabiliser efficiency. So for small ships - fighters, gunships and light corvettes it could be worth it to cut down on stabiliser distance. Everything in cruiser+ range is much better off while using 100% effective stabilisers.

That's of course assuming current config.

 

[Jojomo]

If I didn't mess up the math then using ineffective stabilisers is worth it only under 1750 of reactor size. The bigger reactor becomes after that the more you lose by trying to cut your stabiliser efficiency. So for small ships - fighters, gunships and light corvettes it could be worth it to cut down on stabiliser distance. Everything in cruiser+ range is much better off while using 100% effective stabilisers.

That's of course assuming current config.

No, sounds like you messed up the maths.
I just gave example numbers that show mass savings for a reactor larger than that.
I'll post screenshots of ships when I get a chance.

 

[Zoolimar]

Oh yeah, lost the 2 in a formula. That ups it from 1750 to 15000. Exponents are fun.

 

[Jojomo]

Oh yeah, lost the 2 in a formula. That ups it from 1750 to 15000. Exponents are fun.

Yes, for a specified armour thickness (e.g. 1 layer of AA) there will be an upper limit of reactor size that benefits.

For more reasonable/realistic/typical armour thickness the limit will be far higher.

For example if a 30x30x30 reactor (27k blocks, 2.7million e/s) wants to drop to 50% stabiliser efficiency (length drops by about 230m), without losing power output, it can if it has 2 layers of AA.
If it wants to drop to 20% stabiliser efficiency (length drops by about 370m) it can if it has 4 layers of AA .

EDIT: actually those length reductions are a bit off because they don't account for stabiliser length (assuming stabiliser dimensions stay the same on x and y axes and only increase on z).
The 50% efficiency layout would actually reduce length by 200m, and the 20% efficiency layout would drop length by 305m (means the drop to 20% efficiency might actually require 5 layers of AA, not 4).

Anyway, the concept is (hopefully) clear to everyone, and definitely undeniable. Assuming your hull/armour per metre of length is sufficient (and it typically will be) you can save mass (and length) by reducing your stabiliser efficiency and adding extra stabilisers.

EDIT 2
Some discussion on this effect: (caveat, I haven't yet run any numbers on this)
Also as above this relies on the assumption that separated sub-hulls for reactor and stabilisers won't be possible in the end.

Although on the surface the new power system appears to push for long thin ships and ignore other dimensions, digging deeper we can see that isn't universally true.

Not only can you save mass by reducing length and increasing stabiliser counts, you can magnify this effect by creating extra needed volume in the x and y directions instead of the z axis, because when you do this it increases the mass of hull per metre of length (and of course reduces your surface area for the same internals counts).

In other words, you can shorten you hulls even further and then save even more mass by making your reactors/stabilisers shorter but higher and wider. (Although if that means you'll be effectively including more empty space inside your hull dimensions this probably isn't true)

I'd estimate (will check later when I have time) that the effect I've been discussing for a while, plus this magnifying effect, means that power 2.0 pushes ships toward an "ideal" shape of approximately a brick (an elongated cube, but not overly long compared to its height or width).

Obviously anyone literally building a brick shape won't likely get a pleasant reception, but bricks are closer to "normal"/"good" (don't ask me to define those!) hull shapes than either sticks or cubes.

I'm really, really impressed by power 2.0. I don't know if it was the brain-child of just a single person at Schine, but if it was that person deserves a pat on the back.

 

[jontyfreack]

I can tell you that a retribution battleships bridge alone is 2000 hours.

I Like this idea, there might be better ideas, but this is one of the few that I like to an extent.

 

[Nickizzy]

Two things-
Doesn't this force everyone to armor tank? If you can only have as much shields as your armor allows, that defeat's the point of shield tanking.
What would power be based on? would you have infinate power, until you added to many system blocks? Or would it be the old system with these limits? Or just X power points that you assign to gen and storage, which you get by adding armor to your ship?

 

[NeonSturm]

Two things-
Doesn't this force everyone to armor tank? If you can only have as much shields as your armor allows, that defeat's the point of shield tanking.
What would power be based on? would you have infinate power, until you added to many system blocks? Or would it be the old system with these limits? Or just X power points that you assign to gen and storage, which you get by adding armor to your ship?

You can have shields or you can have guns.
Shields are for mitigating dps from pesky little ticks and moskitos , hull should be for mitigating alpha damage.

 

[Dire Venom]

You can have shields or you can have guns.
Shields are for mitigating dps from pesky little ticks and moskitos , hull should be for mitigating alpha damage.

Mitigating alpha:?

Well I guess your right, the majority of high alpha shots go straight through the ship and out the other side, wasting a ton of damage XD
Hull/armour really does need a rework beyond "don't get hit and your fine".
I think both heaviliy shielded and armoured ships should be viable, and hopefully chambers (alongside an armour and weapons rework) will help acheive that.

 

[GnomeKing]

the majority of high alpha shots go straight through the ship and out the other side, wasting a ton of damage

yes...but wasn't that always the trick? - to not have loads of wasted damage/energy simply by building a huge gun ? No extra balance is necessary - you are welcome to your gazillion-dps cannon; it is not more effective than one orders of magnitude smaller at shooting straight through a hull :/ .... this itself balances shield vs armor weapons to some extent , as high alpha shield-weapons tend to leave neat holes through ships without necessarily causing huge destruction.

The basic premise of 'ships' is always going to be a bit more 'egg-with-hammer' than an ablative contest.

Perhaps conkers (Conkers - Wikipedia) is better than 'eggs' though - in conkers you see the thing crack, split and collapse for a time, before spectacular structural failure.

Eggs, on the other hand, can only ever very briefly be as spectacular...

 

[Lecic]

Interesting and well worded idea. I don't think I would personally like it implemented though. It doesn't really fix the issue and you even pointed this out in your post. People can just build a big brick of armor on the front or rear of their ship and still have a system brick type vessel. Ultimately, people will always build ugly but functional things, and people who focus mostly on aesthetics will lose to someone who focuses on performance.

Besides, the real meta is spaghetti, and this doesn't really do anything to fix that. Just add some hull strands into that Unidentified Flying Cuisine.