Search results

That's the point? If you can destroy all reactors the ship dies either way. It no longer matters if you have SHP or not - you have no energy on the ship. Currently you have the same system but only with one reactor. How having SHP will help against someone hitting your reactor with a missile or...

Both of those propositions are bandaids on a system that relies on a single reactor. If the ship didn't rely on a single reactor it wouldn't be a problem to have reactor sniping - as long as multiple reactors start getting penalties after a certain point.

Here is a good thread with ideas on how to encourage interiors without the need for stabilizers Brainstorm This: Crew Chambers (no crew) I'd say a similar solution alone is enough to make ships look much more ship like. To discourage island builds you could apply additional mechanics...

I know what they do. I just don't understand why they were used in the first place - those functions could have been added to relationships between reactors and systems without adding a new block and that purple thing.

Theoretically it is now possible as shields do not recharge under fire. And why do you need stabilisers and those purple streams for that? Reactors and systems themselves would have more than sufficed.

I still don't see a point in their existence. And single reactor per dock chain still creates a lot of problems and maybe even needs some workarounds for stations - which is inelegant and depending on severity of workarounds could lead to other problems. But overall yes - they no longer suck.

I don't see that much of a problem with integrity. Unless I'm really bad at math a 4x4 strand should give you +4 integrity per block of length. And 5x5 strand will give you +16 integrity per block of length. It could make ships under 1k mass pretty strained. But I don't see how it negatively...

It is not a bug. Shield recharge is disabled after hit for 5 seconds. You could lower this time with chambers to 1 second.

Rechecked some numbers. I was wrong. Forgot the changes made to the drives. There will be no 15-20% drop in reactor power due to drives. More like 3-5%, due to the fact that thrusters have gone from ~4 thrust per 30 energy to 8 thrust per 4 energy points. So surrounding your reactor with...

It's not equivalent mass it's equivalent thrust at same power. If you want the same thrust at same power but one of the ships is more massive it will need to have more drives. And as power is constant it will mean cutting down on weapons or shields or both. So you will have two ships with...

And I counted only additional stabilisers. Or did they change the mass again ? Reactors were 0.4 and stabilisers 0.2. So 16% increase.

Tiny ? Try it on anything bigger than 10k mass. Thrusters have a 0.85 exponent on thrust scaling, last time I checked, so the more drives you have the less effective they are. To keep the speed parity you'll need around 10-15% more thrusters. And the bigger your ship the bigger will be the power...

1. Manoeuvrability maybe but speed will be on the side of the tube. 2. The middle part could be literally just a thin armour shell tube over the stream and some turrets around it. 3. Obvious placement gives around 15% more power (accounting for systems installed) at the same mass than the...

Not that. He uses 90% of total power for systems and leaves 10% for force major circumstances, lag or damage during fight. Problem with this is nonlinear scaling of thrusters and the fact that at the same mass tube will have more energy. For 50% efficient stabilisers tube will have around 20%...

So where is the downside to the single block stabilizers in there ? Empty space doesn't penalize the ship on its characteristics. Only on looks. If single block stabilizers give the same or even better stabilization than multi-block groups than they are more effective, even if they take a...

Well, then welcome to the mushed systems. Where reactors, shields and so on are made out of 1 block groups. Thousands upon thousands of them. You basically introduce HP to ships by removing most parts that are worth shooting at.

Does it mean that the most effective reactor layout is multiple groups built up to effectiveness cap, after which you get hit by diminishing returns, or even thousands of 1 block reactors - because they are the most effective?

That is literally what was being discussed and outlined on previous pages. The only difference is the basic block was the workstation and not the bounding box outline. So fighters needed only workstations. Light ships needed workstations and some space around them designated by a bounding...

I would prefer to have 1 block workstation with no additional things, space, crew or whatever, instead of adding bounding box lines for each 2x2x4 chamber. For fighters 1 block should be enough to get the full effect. On the other hand if you want to have only bounding box lines it will take...

You need workstations for fighters. As long as you want for crew chamber system to work smoothly over all sizes.