Search results

Further Re-fitting: another ship: this one smaller in all dimensions and less mass than previous but with same power regen from moderately efficient & compact XYZ lines - the XYZ threading took time to make relatively compact - this ship has a much higher proportion of armor than previous and...

(that all said i still think 'hammer-head dumb-bells will be the obvious core choice for power focused new builds :/ )

While I am not really a fan of of the basic reactor-stabilizer system, I agree that some re-presentation of the concept might help with psychology. something like; - individual-stabilizer efficiency can only ever 'try to approach 100%' in practical builds - optimal ship design does not require...

I see your point brucethemoose. But when I started playing, i found the magic of [seach-engine-of-choice], and the really useful YouTube videos by veteran community members were all that I needed. Oh yes, and the Wiki ... I did not need to dig into forum threads until i was well into the game...

A change for the better, I agree > virtually zero power usage for salvage has always felt a bit wrong, and massive salvage arrays disproportionate easy to design compared to other systems as a consequence. Re: New Players, as mentioned by Mr Moose : i don't think that is much of an issue > in...

... current Dev builds are NOT more intuitive> i have 200,000 regen > this can fire a 6000block beam (no other systems mounted), which apparently delivers 600,000 dps / power cost > when idle, i see 9%(?) power drain > when i fire, and during recharge i see 45%(?) power usage of my 200,000 e/sec...

i see your point Non about the reactors - but I completely disagree. As the fundamental component of a ship, I think there should be scope for 'better' and 'more complex' reactor designs, ideally different choices of reactor-form/power source > > everything being suggested (including power 2.0)...

a fair point - i worry about armour-scaling-bonus becoming very powerful - but that could equally be fun if done right

I really enjoyed building docked-reactor and multi-core contraptions aswell - but they lagged like fuck when broken, and could be cheaty as hell if militarized!!! >expend your engineering energies on [insert idea here] instead :) as Dire Venom says, and others elsewhere, turrets as 'docked...

errrrm, can't i just put many layers of hull on (or even in) my brick ? > internal armour/'hp' stacks protected by even more exterior armour...hmmm, that seems to make a hard, not soft brick :/

Non, i never started the spaghetti-debates > But it is a useful ABSTRACT concept for the build mechanics at one extreme... You are right that 'RP' ships (what is that anyway? - has a cabin and obligatory med-bay ? :/) can be made 'powerful' already - no-need for power 2.0 at all on that basis...

Nicely presented thoughts and ideas ... but i disagree with the whole ship-mass=power thing (also in other wrong-headed thread about 'dimensional bane'...) Bigger/heavier ships having more power in a linear and predicable way ? I think that is kinda boring, and lacking 'edges'/ traction for...

I see your point Jojomo - and that could be a matter of where the cut-off is set in configs for the sweet-spot where extra hull-skin is worse choice than more sub-100% stabalisers. (that is assuming a full skin...) Since it is unclear how thrusters and mass ratio will / wont change this issue...

Some ways to get players to interact are important and needed : an admin moderated or gentle-persons agreement for 'capture the sector/station' (eg different mass limits or other conditions) type game could be workable > this can allow for controlled combat and lets players test ships against...

to quote Jojomo "but in almost all cases the stabilisers shouldn't be placed where they have 100% effect (i.e. fully green), somewhere closer will almost always be better (increased stabiliser mass will be offset by reduced ship mass that results from a shorter ship). " The example you gave...

no limit of power relative to size of ship, just size/properties of the reactor group. in power 1.0, capacity and regen are not actually capped, just diminishing returns on huge group sizes But we can only talk about 'power' in the abstract for so long > the 'smaller' ship could be...

Chckn Wildstytle makes good points - i could also be happy with other ideas to modify current 'global shields', but if 'area-effect' shields (which i kinda like the basic idea of) are problematic for the kinds of critical reasons mentioned above, then i can live without this particular new...

progressively letting in damage for shields seems the idea > perhaps as they get weakened, or perhaps when total shield size gets 'very big' (ie 'small ships' still have 100% protection). nobody is trying to nerf 'large ships' simply for the sake of it - but make game-play with larger vs...

"The fact that the longer but cheaper ship produces more power is unbalanced" -Nope, it isn't. The 'cheaper/more-powerful ship' must have been built using a design that better uses the inherent rules of the construction materials The 'expensive/less powerful ship' could also have been built in...

(? citation ? ) "..a ship twice the length of another, built with half as many blocks/resources, can produce more power" this makes no sense as any amount of hull/systems may or may not also be present; unless you mean specifically 'reactor blocks', in which case 'twice as many reactor blocks'...