Search results

Interesting one. How about swapping the secondary reactor and the top left chamber so that damage to the left is less likely to take out all reactors, and the two right hand chambers get closer to a reactor?

Couldn't you run a larger, less efficient power system? How often did you run a perfectly efficient power system in power 1.0?

They don't force anything, you can still put your stabilisers close to your reactor, you'll just reduce your power efficiency.

Was that a stated goal of power 2.0? (Not saying it wasn't - asking) Was that with perfect reactor efficiency? What length could you get down to with reduced efficiency?

I don't see that being required - you'd have to move an entire system to need to redo a conduit from scratch (which would be a quick little task with a conduit tool like I mentioned) I realise that question wasn't for me specifically... I think some people here yell "forced design" for any...

No, but it's some automation, reducing the manual aspect of it. For non-straight sections players could even "map" where they wanted the conduit by laying some blocks as "waypoints", and then forming straight line sections between them as individual straight connections. I think it would work...

I don't know, but if you look at Star Wars ships for example, an approximate rule of thumb that usually fits fairly well is that around 25% of ship volume is taken up by propulsive systems... EDIT, sorry, that wasn't really very well related to your post, I read it in isolation and without...

I think it's pointless to continue a back-and-forth series of opposing opinions that have already been made clear, and that can't be proven or disproven as facts with some numbers/data, so I won't. Neither of us is going to change our minds. I'll just point out that saying something is so...

I think the suggestion in the OP is great, I'd love to see it all happen, but the more I think about the less feasible I think point #2 is in practice. I don't see a way to stop people avoiding it, and even if they couldn't, I think checking the cross-section thickness all the way along the...

It's a nice idea that gives a good result, but this would be even more computationally intensive than conduits being physically connected. It would require real time distance checking of every system block against every conduit block in the ship, and real time recalculating of conduit ranges. I...

Statistically we could still expect removing a single random shield block to effectively remove 50% of shields in that case, so it's still very different to/much better than current physically unconnected systems where removing a single block would still leave the shields almost entirely...

For you 7 people who've "liked" the OP, you'd have done more to help the suggestion if you stick with the majority and "agreed" instead... ;) EDIT: whoops, I'm one of the 7! Fixed now (Likes were the majority when I rated...)

I think this both achieves Schine's power 2.0 goals, and kills off spaghetti meta.

Lack of disincentive is not encouragement. Not every new mechanic, nor just the most recent new mechanic, should necessarily have to fix spaghetti meta. There's no basis for stating that it's power 2.0's responsibility to fix spaghetti meta. Power 2.0 has a goal, and that doesn't need to...

Will just point out first that as per the question of mine you quoted, we're discussing "dumbbell" shapes specifically. You're making assumptions that don't necessarily hold. Outside PVP duels, 99% of players want their ships to look "good", so the issue isn't necessarily a widespread one to...

I know, I don't claim Lancake is correct in calling what he's referring to as meta, so I put quotation marks around it.

Looks to me like there's no reference to spaghetti meta there, he's only addressed a specific "meta" of empty space in a hull being a waste when considering performance. Some players have then decided on their own that the power update should also address spaghetti meta... I'm repeating...

I don't see why anyone assumes that a power update should be the fix to spaghetti meta. The power update didn't create this meta, they're independent of each other. It can have its own fix. I haven't given fixing spaghetti meta any thought, but one idea that springs immediately to mind is...

So what this boils down to is that power 2.0 isn't responsible for a design like that working, designs like that already worked with the current power system. Like what exactly? Not like the design we're currently discussing, it spaces the stabiliser and reactor far beyond what power 2.0...

Do you see any weaknesses with this design yourself? Is there any reason you couldn't have a very similar design with the current power system, or 2.0 without stabiliser efficiency depending on spacing from the reactor? What overall shape would you describe this as: dumbbell? Stick? No...