HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[Groovrider]

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.

I did not say this and silly is unedifying. The information is out there and it actually not difficult to comprehend, even for new players. Every one of the will have a different idea of they think is a super efficient combat ship wherever they may choose to fight. Embrace it!

 

[GDPR 302420]

Every one of the will have a different idea of they think is a super efficient combat ship wherever they may choose to fight. Embrace it!

Some people's "idea" is incorrect and can be proven by empirical evidence.

 

[Groovrider]

Some people's "idea" is incorrect and can be proven by empirical evidence.

Then get crackin' in the dev build with something lethally awesome and prove away. The fun is in finding out and I am very eager to see what players come up with once it goes live.

 

[Top 4ce]

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).

This is true, I was explaining a special case as I understood the arguments.

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.

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.

This then boils down to a couple of thoughts on how to build, this assuming that everything is enclosed in single volume.

For the same volume (since this seems to be the variable that is being discussed) is it better to have a smaller reactor that takes up less volume to use that space for systems, or is better to use that available volume to make a more powerful but less volume efficient reactor?

How important is volume within a ship?

 

[GDPR 302420]

Then get crackin' in the dev build with something lethally awesome and prove away. The fun is in finding out and I am very eager to see what players come up with once it goes live.

Most of the knoweldable PvPers, myself included either have agotten in the dev build and figured out the meta or someone else who beat them to it filled them in and they started testing.

We know, and I personal want to share this knoweldge with the wider community as a mentor, of course this means that calling out misinformation is nessicary.

 

[Jojomo]

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

Space isn't a bottleneck in systems 2.0. There's more than enough of it without needing to make any effort.
I'm talking about using less blocks total. Add a small number of stabiliser blocks to save a large number of hull blocks.

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.

Forced empty space between reactor and stabilisers?
You've spent your last half a dozen posts alternating between criticising me for showing a mechanic that can reduce that space (if someone so desires) and singing the praises of empty space (which I don't disagree with).

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.

Efficiency of what?
I'm pointing out the potential benefits of low stabiliser efficiency, nothing else. I'm advocating using fewer total blocks than you are.

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

Please make up your mind: will there be forced empty space in systems 2.0 designs or not?

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.

Wrong.
If the lightest stabiliser efficiency ("LSE" - I can't be bothered typing that out in the future) for your ship is 15% but you need to use at least 25% SE to fit all your systems, then the solution to this "problem" is obvious to anyone: you use 25% SE.
Your power/mass ratio hasn't gained as much as it would at 15%, but it's still better than at 100%, and you fit all your systems.
Enough space for systems is a non-issue - anyone can achieve it in systems 2.0 without even trying.
[doublepost=1512272653,1512272251][/doublepost]

For the same volume (since this seems to be the variable that is being discussed) is it better to have a smaller reactor that takes up less volume to use that space for systems, or is better to use that available volume to make a more powerful but less volume efficient reactor?

How important is volume within a ship?

It's important obviously, but there's really no issue with it within the context of reducing stabiliser efficiency.

Internal space is very, very abundant in systems 2.0
Even if you have a design with an extremely low LSE that might actually be capable of causing space issues (say 10% LSE) avoiding the issue is trivial and obvious - just use a slightly higher SE that gives you enough internal space, instead of the LSE. No space issues, and your power/mass ratio still benefits from lowering your SE.

 

[Calhoun]

Space isn't a bottleneck in systems 2.0. There's more than enough of it without needing to make any effort.
I'm talking about using less blocks total. Add a small number of stabiliser blocks to save a large number of hull blocks.


Forced empty space between reactor and stabilisers?
You've spent your last half a dozen posts alternating between criticising me for showing a mechanic that can reduce that space (if someone so desires) and singing the praises of empty space (which I don't disagree with).


Efficiency of what?
I'm pointing out the potential benefits of low stabiliser efficiency, nothing else. I'm advocating using fewer total blocks than you are.


Please make up your mind: will there be forced empty space in systems 2.0 designs or not?


Wrong.
If the lightest stabiliser efficiency ("LSE" - I can't be bothered typing that out in the future) for your ship is 15% but you need to use at least 25% to fit all your systems, then the solution to this "problem" is obvious to anyone: you use 25% LSE.
Your power/mass hasn't gained as much as it would at 15%, but it's still better than at 100%, and you fit all your systems.
Enough space for systems is a non-issue - anyone can achieve it in systems 2.0 without even trying.

Space for systems is always a bottleneck when you're trying to build within a hull. You're also advocating using a larger reactor with lower stabiliser efficiency, which means you're going to need more blocks for power, not less. A prebuilt hull always has the same internal block count, what matters in system design is how efficient you can get those systems.

Consider a simple example:

A hull has an internal block volume of 20 blocks. I use 8 for power, with the minimum amount of stabilisers (which means stabilisers at 100% efficiency). the other 12 are evenly split between weapons, shields and thrust.

You take the same hull, but use 12 blocks for power. Using less than 100% efficient stabilisers means you need more of them to achieve stabilisation. While you now have more power, you're limited to only 8 blocks for the rest of the systems. Your excess power is pointless, because you now have a weaker ship, and the smaller reactor powers it's systems fine anyway.

 

[Jojomo]

Space for systems is always a bottleneck when you're trying to build within a hull. You're also advocating using a larger reactor with lower stabiliser efficiency, which means you're going to need more blocks for power, not less. A prebuilt hull always has the same internal block count, what matters in system design is how efficient you can get those systems.

Consider a simple example:

A hull has an internal block volume of 20 blocks. I use 8 for power, with the minimum amount of stabilisers (which means stabilisers at 100% efficiency). the other 12 are evenly split between weapons, shields and thrust.

You take the same hull, but use 12 blocks for power. Using less than 100% efficient stabilisers means you need more of them to achieve stabilisation. While you now have more power, you're limited to only 8 blocks for the rest of the systems. Your excess power is pointless, because you now have a weaker ship, and the smaller reactor powers it's systems fine anyway.

Yes, but in systems 2.0 you have this situation: if your power system can fit within your given hull at 100% SE, then it isn't powerful enough to power all the systems that can fit within that hull.

(Barring extreme geometry of course, as usual)

 

[Calhoun]

Yes, but in systems 2.0 you have this situation: if your power system can fit within your given hull at 100% SE, then it isn't powerful enough to power all the systems that can fit within that hull.

Even if that were true, Why is that a good thing?

 

[Jojomo]

Even if that were true, Why is that a good thing?

Is it good? I don't know or care what's good about it. That's what the system is, and my interest is minmaxxing the system.

 

[Calhoun]

Is it good? I don't know or care what's good about it. That's what the system is, and my interest is minmaxxing the system.

If your interest was in min-maxing you would never talk about something less efficient as a good thing.

 

[Jojomo]

If your interest was in min-maxing you would never talk about something less efficient as a good thing.

So very wrong. There's no point using max efficiency on one sub-system if it lowers your overall efficiency.

Except for extreme designs (no hull/ ultra-thin rods/ etc), best power/mass ratio will be achieved with SE lower than 100%.

 

[Calhoun]

efficiency

 

[Chances_Ghost]

this entire thread is flawed for one simple reason, its completly ignoring the exsistance of every other block that will exsist on the ship that isnt reactor/stabaliser/hull.

if ships consisted of ONLY those blocks Jojo would be correct, but they dont and never will.

Jojo is attempting to save mass... why? we may never know. the simplest solution is to remove hull altogether, now ive saved a CRAPTON more mass than Jojo ever will

JoJoMo - why are you so hellbent on saving mass that you confuse mass for overall ship efficiancy...

(poor original OP got thread hijacked.... you all know who im talking about...)

 

[NeonSturm]

I think it's good to replace all these computers and modules with a few chamber-blocks.
I also think it's beneficial to the game to have ship roles depending on the reactor.
(scout, interceptor, ...)

That was in the OP

if ships consisted of ONLY those blocks OP would be correct, but they dont and never will.

That was useful because you pointed out an issue with most posts here.

BUT I were talking about FTL-modules/computers and Scanner-modules/computers you need on every ship today but not in the new builds soon.

OP is attempting to save mass... why? we may never know. the simplest solution is to remove hull altogether, now ive saved a CRAPTON more mass than OP ever will

Why are you keep saying OP? That's my post.
I also talk about designs where you cannot see most of your systems. That's a design as it was meant to be when hull got implemented.​

 

[Chances_Ghost]

yeah i got confused because your thread got hijacked completly, my bad.

 

[Lecic]

There are of course exceptions that won't benefit, e.g. unhulled ships

This is the fundamental flaw with your argument. You are discarding the "exceptions" that prove your design philosophy wrong.

Hull is unnecessary.

The way to build a ship in Power 2.0 is the same as before. Max efficiency on a per mass scale is not achievable with a hull because you end up with a higher surface area to volume ratio to achieve that max efficiency, so you discard the hull. While you're at it, you might as well spread your systems far and wide in strands as well. Now shots pass right through you without even touching your systems, and any shots that do connect do minimal damage because they can't hit more than a few blocks.

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

I refuse to let moderators censor me to benefit the ego of an inexperienced and inept RPer who continues to shill his flawed build method that has been proven to be untruthful.

If the moderators want to comment on arguments over systems, they should learn the systems properly. If not, fuck off. Carebear "everyone can build how they want to and decide whats most efficient in their minds teehee " shit is not welcome. We are discussing the actual balance, and there is a black and white here of what is most efficient and what is not.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

this is classic PVE vs PVP conflict.

 

[The Judge]

this is classic PVE vs PVP conflict.

Boy, if only there were further indication that this is a PvE vs. PvP conflict.

 

[Jojomo]

this entire thread is flawed for one simple reason, its completly ignoring the exsistance of every other block that will exsist on the ship that isnt reactor/stabaliser/hull.

if ships consisted of ONLY those blocks Jojo would be correct, but they dont and never will.

Jojo is attempting to save mass... why? we may never know. the simplest solution is to remove hull altogether, now ive saved a CRAPTON more mass than Jojo ever will

JoJoMo - why are you so hellbent on saving mass that you confuse mass for overall ship efficiancy...

(poor original OP got thread hijacked.... you all know who im talking about...)

The systems blocks for a given reactor output stay constant.

I.e. you don't make them worse or better by altering your shape (always within the assumption that you have enough volume for them, I've addressed that previously).
What is affected by shape is your power system and your hull, and that's why those are what's being discussed.

Lowering SE allows better power/mass ratios.
[doublepost=1512292293,1512292152][/doublepost]

Boy, if only there were further indication that this is a PvE vs. PvP conflict.

There isn't though. As far as I can tell that only exists in the minds of some who want it to be that.
I'm not PvE, I'm not RP. I have no interest in either of those.
I don't call myself PvP either, but if you're someone that insists that all SM players are one of those three, PvP is the only one that interests me.