Just gonna leave this here...

[Ithirahad]

How the hell is this desirable?

EDIT: Volume/surface area calculations inaccurate due to dev build bug. Point still stands.

 

[CyberTao]

bEcAuSe ThE mAtH cHeCkS oUt

 

[Zoolimar]

Embrace your future!

 

[Drakkart]

it is not desirable. but for some reason they still stick to it.

 

[Captain Fortius]

I have immediately seen the problem upon reading about the update.
Actually trying it was but a confirmation of what I already knew.
Nth idea for a better power update
You, dear OP, and many others were easily able to independently make the same conclusion as well.

Yet the guys making / planning the update remain oblivious to it, DESPITE our warnings.
That worries me.

 

[Drakkart]

That worries me.

sad to admit it but you get used to it.

 

[Exozen]

"The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for building different systems. As for distance, we selected initial values based upon data from Criss and other adjustments made to milestone power stability before release. Among other things, we're looking at average per-player power gen rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenging ships that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay."

 

[The_Owl]

 

[nulitor]

How about making ship get more power based on doggyness?
I mean you would use a dog recognition ai to see the doggyness of the ship from each angle and if it is high then the ship gets more power.(I mean there is already a dog recognition ai so it would not change much to try to see how much doggy the ship is for deciding its powergen)

 

[CyberTao]

How about making ship get more power based on doggyness?
I mean you would use a dog recognition ai to see the doggyness of the ship from each angle and if it is high then the ship gets more power.(I mean there is already a dog recognition ai so it would not change much to try to see how much doggy the ship is for deciding its powergen)

And here we have a man who enjoys the doggy style of play

 

[nulitor]

I want this to be meta.

 

[Neon_42]

I don't think your math is right. Counting the top blocks you have a 10*25*20 box for a total volume of 5000 blocks. So it is impossible to have a volume of 7128 blocks. Volume being L*W*H.

Your surface area is 2*W*H+2(W(L-2))+2(L-2)(H-2). We have to be careful in calculating the surface area because we can accidentally count the blocks on the corners 2-3 times if we just did 2*L*W+2*L*H+2*W*H. So the surface blocks you have in the top picture is 1688 blocks meaning you can fill 3312 blocks with systems.

On the bottom you have a 7*7*86 box for a total volume of 4212 blocks and the number of surface blocks is 2114 leaving 2100 blocks available for systems.

These things are not directly comparable.

 

[Ithirahad]

I don't think your math is right. Counting the top blocks you have a 10*25*20 box for a total volume of 5000 blocks. So it is impossible to have a volume of 7128 blocks. Volume being L*W*H.

Your surface area is 2*W*H+2(W(L-2))+2(L-2)(H-2). We have to be careful in calculating the surface area because we can accidentally count the blocks on the corners 2-3 times if we just did 2*L*W+2*L*H+2*W*H. So the surface blocks you have in the top picture is 1688 blocks meaning you can fill 3312 blocks with systems.

On the bottom you have a 7*7*86 box for a total volume of 4212 blocks and the number of surface blocks is 2114 leaving 2100 blocks available for systems.

These things are not directly comparable.

I just checked, and you're right. The build mode stats said one thing, but the ships are apparently not actually of those dimensions. However, if I have 3312 blocks worth if internal volume on the TOP ship and it has less than half the regen of a ship with a significantly LOWER internal (and total) volume, that would go to further prove my point, not break it. :P

 

[Neon_42]

I just checked, and you're right. The build mode stats said one thing, but the ships are apparently not actually of those dimensions. However, if I have 3312 blocks worth if internal volume on the TOP ship and it has less than half the regen of a ship with a significantly LOWER internal (and total) volume, that would go to further prove my point, not break it. :P

Not necessarily,

1)if the build mode stats are wrong then how likely is it that the power stats are also wrong? It would be good to check this.

2) the power efficiency you get for the top is 5e /block and the bottom is 11e / block. So you can have more powerful systems in the bottom but less of them, and in the top you can have more systems but less powerful ones. It seems like there is a balance here between specialized and all purpose ships.

3) in terms of balance you'd have to also check against the total ship hp. The top one will have more hp because of more blocks.

To do this properly you can test a 10 * 10 *50 ship and a 10 * 20 * 25 ship. That would give you a good baseline to compare. Then you'd have to subtract the of number power generators and stabilizers from the number of available blocks.

Then with the same ships you'd have to do the same thing again but with the same number of power generators and stabilizers. Calculate the e per available block and see what number you get.

Last you'd have to test ships with more kinds of systems vs ships with stronger systems but fewer kinds. This is probably very difficult to test, so for now we can just test ships with the same volumes, but the energy blocks distributed differently.

edit: spelling

 

[Zoolimar]

the power efficiency you get for the top is 5e /block and the bottom is 11e / block. So you can have more powerful systems in the bottom but less of them, and in the top you can have more systems but less powerful ones. It seems like there is a balance here between specialized and all purpose ships.

Only if some unholy force prevents him from building systems outside designated box. Otherwise more energy means more systems can be powered.

 

[Neon_42]

Only if some unholy force prevents him from building systems outside designated box. Otherwise more energy means more systems can be powered.

yes, but then you're unprotected when shields go down. Basically limiting you to a shield tank in the long narrow case if you decide to build outside the box. In the short squat case you can armor your ship more but can't spend as much on systems outside your ship. There appears to be an attempt at balance there.

edit: Also at this point you're not comparing apples to apples as building outside the box unlimits the number of blocks you can use. It would be best to test this by limiting the total number of blocks and trying to build the best ship possible, which is what the first post was trying to do.

 

[Ithirahad]

Not necessarily,

1)if the build mode stats are wrong then how likely is it that the power stats are also wrong? It would be good to check this.

Highly unlikely. Schine needs a functional indicator for power stats specifically, so if there were a bug with this it would probably be noticed and patched very quickly.

2) the power efficiency you get for the top is 5e /block and the bottom is 11e / block. So you can have a more powerful systems in the bottom but less of them and in the top you can have more systems but less powerful ones. It seems like there is a balance here between specialized and all purpose ships.

So, 'specialized' ships should all be long and 'general purpose' ships should all be boxy? :P

Besides, from my experience that isn't necessarily how that works. More power means I can fit larger weapons, and now that weapons are smaller, a 'larger' weapon won't be too huge anyway. Also, realistically there's nothing stopping me from putting the weapons on the outside of the box. The point is just that building with very long proportions allows for a significantly lighter ship with more power to start with.

3) in terms of balance you'd have to also check against the total ship hp. The top one will have more hp because of more blocks.

Might not be as simple as this. Having more reactor HP might not matter if the bottom one can wipe out multiple times the amount of HP and it doesn't balance out with the top one's theoretical extra survivability.

 

[Neon_42]

Highly unlikely. Schine needs a functional indicator for power stats specifically, so if there were a bug with this it would probably be noticed and patched very quickly.

So, 'specialized' ships should all be long and 'general purpose' ships should all be boxy? :P

Besides, from my experience that isn't necessarily how that works. More power means I can fit larger weapons, and now that weapons are smaller, a 'larger' weapon won't be too huge anyway. Also, realistically there's nothing stopping me from putting the weapons on the outside of the box. The point is just that building with very long proportions allows for a _significantly lighter ship_ with _more power_ to start with.

Might not be as simple as this. Having more reactor HP might not matter if the bottom one can wipe out multiple times the amount of HP and it doesn't balance out with the top one's theoretical extra survivability.

Do the experiment. If you want I'll help you, if you've got a server you like to play on with the dev build send me a message.

I'm not saying specialized ships should all be long and narrow, and general purpose is boxy. I'm saying there is a spectrum of those things. A boxy ship can be more generalized with weaker systems and a longer ship can be specialized with stronger systems. There is also a balance in HP. Your boxy ship can tank more damage as it has more hull blocks and can fit more shield capacitors , whereas your long ship can be faster and output more damage. This also would be a good experiment.

 

[AtraUnam]

Under what circumstances would I ever want weaker systems?

 

[Scypio]

Just because.