HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[Jojomo]

I can't be bothered reading through this entire thread, so here's your options in new power working with a prebuilt hull:

Use a larger reactor with less efficient stabilisers. This has the advantage of typically a bit more power, but comes at the cost of system space and squishy-ness. More power blocks in total = more damage to them. Add to it the fact that you have less total systems (thrust, weapons, shields) and this isn't the best option, unless you're inexperienced and aren't sure what the final systems of your ship will be.

More power for given mass, less percentage damage to your power system per enemy weapon impact.

Use a smaller reactor with 100% stabilisers.

This has the advantage of using less blocks, which allows for more systems, at the cost of less power. Less power blocks also has a small damage mitigation by there being less blocks to actually hit (simple probability). This is easily the best option if you can calculate or closely estimate the final stats of the ship.

Less power for a given mass.
[doublepost=1512254313,1512254085][/doublepost]

Plenty of people are claiming otherwise, you are just ignoring them

Post a ship at 100% stabiliser efficiency, as per the guidelines in my post on page 1. I'll modify it and post it back with more power at the same mass.

 

[Groovrider]

Seriously we are going to have to find some way to discuss differing philosophies in building without resorting to large and somewhat sarcastic images. I would urge all sides to contemplate building styles and optimization will exist on a spectrum with no absolutes. That is the fundamental basis of this game. Implying inexperience, ineptitude or intolerance for build choices, on all sides, is not the way forward.

 

[nulitor]

Or you can have both side build their ships and then fight each other.
Then see which side gets the most victories.
(of course you should probably do that with the classical pvp limitations in mass(like no more than 20k) Or cost(like no more than 200k$) and see with each measurement which is the best design philosophy)
Then share videos because it will probably be cool.

 

[Groovrider]

Or you can have both side build their ships and then fight each other.
Then see which side gets the most victories.
(of course you should probably do that with the classical pvp limitations in mass(like no more than 20k) and other stuff like that)

That will only prove which design, under fair constraints, is the best at fighting. That is not the only activity in this game.

 

[nulitor]

Well ships mainly fight, mine and move around.
moving around is generally best done with small and quick ships that gets as much power-gen as possible with minimal mass for being cloaked and radar jammed and warping as fast as possible.
And mining is done by using salvage modules, turning around and moving around which is best done with a ship that is not long but having an heavy ship can make moving it around harder.(thus why you might want to not use any armor and use maximum efficiency powergen if you want to be fast but is speed as much important as turning speed? Also while having more trust to mass allows to increase rotation speed having a shorter ships helps that too)

 

[Top 4ce]

I think the point here is that there is two ways to approach the current power within ships. 100% vs not 100%.

As I've asked before, the answer seems to be unless converting or having a set hull first, always have 100%. Per mass you might get more power under 100% but you sacrifice volume and increase vulnerability. Might be a trade one can make depending on the build, but generally 100% is better.

The issue with 100% is better is that under the highly competitive angle of PvP, it creates a forced space and design that can encourage spaghetti ships. Which is a big balance issue, unless addressed in someway.

This is how I understand the arguments being made, with evidence supported. Correct me if I misunderstood something.

 

[Kelpaz]

Post a ship at 100% stabiliser efficiency, as per the guidelines in my post on page 1. I'll modify it and post it back with more power at the same mass.

I posted a simple 100% stabilizer efficient test ship with no hull but you ignored it claiming that I misunderstood the topic.
Sure I wasn't making the post for you especially but I was merely pointing out stabilizer distances.
This was the only thread discussing power 2.0 build strategies which is why I posted here.
Clearly you didn't read my post nor understand it.

 

[Jojomo]

I posted a simple 100% stabilizer efficient test ship with no hull but you ignored it claiming that I misunderstood the topic.
Clearly you didn't read my post nor understand it.

You're correct, I didn't read your post.

Read all mine first.

 

[Kelpaz]

You're correct, I didn't read your post.

Read all mine first.

I did but I don't see the point of building inefficient reactors.

 

[Jojomo]

I think the point here is that there is two ways to approach the current power within ships. 100% vs not 100%.

As I've asked before, the answer seems to be unless converting or having a set hull first, always have 100%. Per mass you might get more power under 100% but you sacrifice volume and increase vulnerability. Might be a trade one can make depending on the build, but generally 100% is better.

I don't see the relevance for whether or not the hull is pre-built, the numbers are all the same at the end (I personally build systems first, hull last).

I'd say giving up power per mass is a big sacrifice.
You don't need the extra volume 100% stabiliser efficiency gives you (and as a bonus you get better manoeuvrability).
As for vulnerability, a larger stabiliser group will take more hits to disable than a smaller stabiliser group.
[doublepost=1512257462,1512257403][/doublepost]

I did but I don't see the point of building inefficient reactors.

You appear to be making the same error RedAlert did. No-one is talking about inefficient reactors. We're talking about inefficient stabilisers.

 

[Kelpaz]

You appear to be making the same error RedAlert did. No-one is talking about inefficient reactors. We're talking about inefficient stabilisers.

Less efficient stabilizers result in a less efficient reactor setup since it uses more blocks that it needs for s reactor that uses full efficiency.

Now I get the feeling that at this point it seems that this thread is just about your opinions because others are invalidated for X reason.

I suppose that there is no reason for me to add anything to this topic since you don't care anyway.

 

[Scypio]

To be honest talking to a wall seems more pleasant.

 

[Kelpaz]

To be honest talking to a wall seems more pleasant.

Definetely agree here, I came to the topic:
"How To build a ship in the new dev build"
My intentions wasn't even to have a one sided conversation but lookie what I got.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Denying evidence that doesn't support your position is the best way to feel like you won.

 

[GDPR 302420]

Implying inexperience, ineptitude or intolerance for build choices, on all sides, is not the way forward.

If someone is spreading misinformation about system building then I will call out that misinformation, misinformation only hurts newer players.

Players who don't have a clue what they are talking about are the worst possible people to take advice from, but if newer players don't know who has a clue and who doesnt, then they can take on "advice" that is harmful to them.

Which is one of the reasons which I beleive the mentor program is great, it allows players to seek advice from people who have been verified by the community to know what they are talking about.

Per mass you might get more power under 100% but you sacrifice volume and increase vulnerability. Might be a trade one can make depending on the build, but generally 100% is better.

Thank you, more blocks used to more your reactor then nessicary is wasted space that could be used for other systems.

The issue with 100% is better is that under the highly competitive angle of PvP, it creates a forced space and design that can encourage spaghetti ships. Which is a big balance issue, unless addressed in someway.

Thats not an issue with 100% efficiency, that is an issue with the base design of 2.0 and how it creates a forced design of empty space between reactor parts.
[doublepost=1512260909,1512260512][/doublepost]

Post a ship at 100% stabiliser efficiency, as per the guidelines in my post on page 1. I'll modify it and post it back with more power at the same mass.

You have failed to see the entire point of why your building method is flawed, your suggestion that you should be adding more blocks then nessicary is wasted space and reduces efficiency.

Your design of adding unessicary reactor component blocks is wasted space that could be used for other systems.

It creates more power but at the cost of filling up your space with unessicary reactor blocks that takes away space for systems that use that power and thus ruins the entire point of creating that extra power in the first place.

 

[Groovrider]

Misinformation, by definition, implies an intent to deceive. No one is attempting to deceive in this thread. Ultimately it will be up to the player to choose what works best for them. I doubt those choices will be identical.

 

[GDPR 302420]

isinformation, by definition, implies an intent to deceive.

Misinformation by definition is "to give false or misleading information to" It does not nessicarily have to be done on purpose.

Source: the definition of misinformation

I would urge all sides to contemplate building styles and optimization will exist on a spectrum with no absolutes

Not all building "styles" on that spectrum are equal in creating an effective ship, some are better then others.

The Most Effective Tactic Avaliable is just that, it is the best way to go about anything in video games, and the meta for building in StarMade at the moment is the way to go, to use less effective tactics is essentialy deliberately designing your ship to be worse then the competition, some care about their ships being effective and some don't but those who do care should use the Most Effective Tactic Avaliable.

 

[Groovrider]

The Most Effective Tactic Avaliable is just that, it is the best way to go about anything in video games, and the meta for building in StarMade at the moment is the way to go, to use less effective tactics is essentialy deliberately designing your ship to be worse then the competition, some care about their ships being effective and some don't but those who do care should use the Most Effective Tactic Avaliable.

And if SM was anything other than a sandbox I would agree with you, but players will do it anyway because they will decide what method they like best for what they are doing. Not everyone will be in a competition. There is no need, I feel, to label it misinformation.

 

[Sachys]

I can't be bothered reading through this entire thread, so here's your options

Well, thats the first sensible post ive seen on the subject since its announcement.

To me though, it still sounds like a load of old gobshite sadly. TA!

Edit: I do mean Calhouns explanation in regards to sensible

 

[Non]

That will only prove which design, under fair constraints, is the best at fighting

Not everyone will be in a competition.

I get what you are saying, but the people who need the highest efficiency designs for power and mass are using them to fight. So to say that fighting isn't a valid method of figuring design effectiveness when the primary goal of making a ship super efficient is to be good in combat, is a little silly.