Search results

So you're saying a soft cap allows better options while keeping it balanced?

Yes, making a jack of all trades gives you a ship that sucks at everything, mostly because of the hard cap. I like the idea of a soft cap. Or just a limit of 3-4 chambers active at once, but they're all connected to the same reactor. Yeah it's an increase in mass, but you don't need more...

A valid opinion on a mechanic from a certain perspective, but I think the jumping system will be more complex as we move forward. That's a good question that I too would like to know.

But most of those bonuses still depend on a system that needs to be powered. Can't take advantage of higher speed if you cant power your thrusters, for example.

That's an opinion and not the stated point of the mechanic.

You're missing the point of the system. It's to encourage specialized ships, you can no longer have a single ship that does all the things really well.

Welcome back!

If you know your right, and can back it up (which you can and have), it doesn't matter if one accepts that they are wrong.

I agree to that logic, however this "you said, I said" stuff is derailing the tread and actual useful info gets buried. Just say whats incorrect (as you and others have) and move on.

Can we leave the "PvP group vs RP group" stuff please, and actually go back too how this update effects stuff like combat and ship building. No matter which group builds it?

Because we're fools, and all hope spaghetti is dealt with?

It seems that yes, Jo's method reduces mass, it does so by sacrificing volume. Lecic's argument is that the volume sacrificed is too important, and outweighs the reduction in mass. There's also the argument that building along one axis at 100% gives you best of all worlds, at the cost of a...

Okay, I'm going to keep asking for clarification so those following the thread can have summaries on what the arguments are. This again is assuming a single enclosed volume. Alright so higher mass vs e/s can be achieved by sacrificing volume. My question is what is the advantage of a lower mass...

Yes. Just, yes.

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

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...

So the argument here is that unless you're filling a shell, meeting a mass or volume requirement, one should place stabilizers at 100% efficiency? Otherwise more stabilizers will equal more power for the same mass, but less volume, especially when armor is included?

- You can use the scroll wheel to rotate; - You sometimes need a chamber to connect to another chamber for some of the more advance stuff; - Shield capacitors do not take up keep and are worthless without generation which is much more important. -Yeah that scan is annoying

Alpha teaches that anti missile defense turrets are important. (Ignore the fact that Alpha did the same thing before PDT where a thing...)