Search results

I would love it so much if they just dropped stabilizers entirely and moved on to functional interior replacing chambers. Honestly though, I hate the way chambers have set efficiency rates way, way more than I hate any aspect of the new power so far. At the end of the day, I am... doubtful that...

Come on now. I am all about critical review. Don't lump yourself in with abusive communicators just because they use you as a shield to turn their gripes into personal attacks with impunity. Complaining about individuals who personally insult and deride the developers is in no way a complaint...

Naw. The devs can always just delete or lock this forum and migrate the community content to a new forum with stricter moderation once they go Beta and people can't flip out because "it's alpha so you need to let us curse at you!" The kind of shenanigans you see here are easily kept out of forums.

True, but this is nothing like a difference in power generation. Also note that your 16% figure is still a function of the scaling of thrusters, which relates back to the issue of total mass. Larger ships tend to be slower? Surprise! They also tend to be less fragile, BTW. And we go back to...

Agreed, and this comes back down to being a PR failure. The forum should have been more tightly moderated, as an official venue. Players can set up their own informal forums to spew bile - freeze peach accomplished.

Again: a 100 block reactor generates the exact same amount regardless of stab formation. No need for extra reactor blocks just because you stabilized in the 50 or 75 percent range, you just increase the number of stabilizers by 50-100%. Or... You don't. And instead you build a dong and...

Both reactors have 100% total stability. The stocky ship has multiple reactor groups at a range from the reactor that each stab block does not get 100% effectiveness, but that does not affect the total maximum stability. It just means you must place a few more stabilizer blocks to achieve 100%...

Pretty sure you either did not read or did not understand. In the example I specifically stated that sacrificing a tiny % of power to fuel a few additional thrusters offset the difference in mass from a few extra stabilizers. Test it, if you don't understand. It'll take 2 minutes. Two ships...

Yeah... that's not something you can add to a door. Not reasonably. I thought the point was keeping doors off the NavComp. I might have mistaken.

Exactly, and this is one of the #1 things Schine must address if they are insisting on the new system. I mentioned it another thread as well. Though probably in the minority, I generally approve of the recent changes to shields (not the bubbles as much, and integrity is 'meh,' but recharge...

True. Public Relations is where they are falling down. They could offset a lot of discontent by making sure everyone knows when they do something like adjustable factory numbers that people have been asking for for years. But... I keep wondering... where is Duke? Lancakes? Where is everyone...

I agree, Batavium and it's just unfortunate that the real failure here may be more in the PR department than in the actual game design arena. That said... an empowered, professional PR effort from a proven team could still easily overcome a lot of the issues as soon as they go to Beta. Beta...

What I would like to see is how totally fresh gamers, new players without any SM experience, respond to power 2.0. I am curious about whether it comes off easier without any preconceptions about SM engineering.

Not precisely. Someone in a thread about the fragility of new reactor rigs jokingly called power 2.0 "coring 2.0" because of how easily certain reactor configs can be taken out. I don't see a ton of equivalence, but there is a rough comparison I guess. So that's out there...

:eek:BACKSTABBER!!

Has anyone conducted any real combat tests of finished ships (ie having viable thrust, shields, armor, weapons) built in 2.0? A long tube gets max per-block power efficiency from reactors, but it makes "coring" the stabilizer and reactor core pretty easy since you always know where they are. It...

Yeah, apparently my windows has decided to reject my HD driver so I'm in need of a full reinstall and possibly a new HD but have tons of work this week so...

Wait... you're adding guns to the 90% consumption mark in 2.0? 10% distributed through thrust and shields? That sounds damn slow for a glass cannon (and at that ratio I am assuming no armor either since thrust would be nothing). They have failed at 1 & 4. They could be succeeding in 2 though...

No jammers in 2.0...

I've tried that stab-ring config to eliminate the stabby stream as well! I found the loss of integrity to be catastrophic... Does the stab dumbell passing through the reactor have any integrity or is it basically a suicide reactor as well? It looks inviable comparing with some of the strange...