A Simple Graph of the Chamber Tree

    Joined
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages
    106
    Reaction score
    78
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 7
    Oh boy, that looks interesting. I had a thread going a long time ago with the idea to give a ship a Special role and for it to recieve Special boni, like a mining ship has increased mining beam efficency, good to see something simillar is going to happen.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Dire Venom
    Joined
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages
    23
    Reaction score
    11
    Interesting. I was kinda worrying after some PvPer's complained, but at least for my fun-building and PvE nonsense this seem excellent! Much easier to give ships specific roles, or even modify them. Imagine it's gonna be great for RP stuff in general, giving your ships capabilities a rough outline.

    I can imagine that some of the abilities are much more useful than others, but that's IMO not much of a problem. Not everything has to be 100% balanced (although PvP dynamics are ofc a bit sensitive either way).
     
    Joined
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages
    226
    Reaction score
    398
    • Supporter
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    I´m pretty sure that a lot of values are still wip and need some adjustment. Also i can see that the number of chambers you´ll need on a ship could be quite problematic depending on reactor size.

    Just a small example:
    45% FTL: Autocharge, Jump Charge Speed 2, Multi Charge 1
    7.5% Recon: Recon Strength 2,
    20% Mobility: Turn Rate 3 72,5
    25% Defence: Base Shield Enhancement, Shield Capacity 1,
    2.5% Stealth: Stealth Strength 1
    0% Mass Chamber: Personal Gravity

    This setup would need 9 chambers which could take up a lot of space. The FTL chambers, basic Recon and Personal Gravity feel like a must have. Also i heard that Turn Rate is pretty op. Not so sure if there is a lot of choices at the moment. Only solution to this is a second reactor to switch.
     
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages
    1,696
    Reaction score
    1,199
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable
    I like the new tech tree. Not sure why it's nominally part of the reactor when none of those chambers affect power production at all... but it's cool.
     
    Joined
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages
    561
    Reaction score
    1,670
    • Likeable Gold
    • Community Content - Silver 2
    • Thinking Positive
    I like the new tech tree. Not sure why it's nominally part of the reactor when none of those chambers affect power production at all... but it's cool.
    "Chambers" are more like power consuming systems connected to the reactor, which are meant to enhance different functions of ships or stations... And although it's true that calling them "chambers" is kind of a misnomer (which makes one think of eg. a "combustion chamber" which is an internal part of power producing machinery) there is in fact a "power chamber" category which affects reactor output.
     
    Joined
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages
    1,696
    Reaction score
    1,199
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable
    I understand, thank you.

    Try to look at it this way though; that one exception aside, are any of the many other chambers part of power generation, or just that one? If only that one, what is "reactor" about the other chambers?

    It is worth noting that when we describe a combustion engine, we typically call every component "part of the engine" even if it isn't directly related to power generation, but... this is a misleading practice IRL, and adversely affects people's understanding of many of these peripheral components, their function, and their varying degrees of necessity. I feel like describing non-reactor components as reactor components is a nomenclature likely to result in poorer understanding of the actual relationships between these systems.

    I could be wrong though. Often am. My basis in their old role as peripheral effect systems could be biasing me againts the new nomenclature.:)