Built-in Jump is... Weird.

[Dire Venom]

I think the chambers should be augmenting alreday present parts of your ship, NOT creating them out of no-where.
Whats next? Thrusters will be decroative and simply determined by ship size? Weapons will become virtual and determined by the size of your reactor?
(Extreme examples, but the point stands).
Can't we just have a bit of both:???

 

[NeonSturm]

We can have a multifunktional computer block automatically transforming into scanner/jump/missile/whatever when an array is connected to it and transforming back to a generic one if nothing is connected.

Each computer could passively boost the power of scanners.

 

[Valiant70]

I think the chambers should be augmenting alreday present parts of your ship, NOT creating them out of no-where.
Whats next? Thrusters will be decroative and simply determined by ship size? Weapons will become virtual and determined by the size of your reactor?
(Extreme examples, but the point stands).
Can't we just have a bit of both:???

It's still kind of like jump is integrated into the reactor, but doesn't seem as strange intuitively.

 

[Benevolent27]

My vote is that it is indeed strange and unrealistic. But then again, the chamber system is a totally different system, so how it would play into that I don't know. I think it would definitely make the game more noob friendly, since now all you need to start jumping around is a core.

I think ideally it would be a setting that server admins can change.

 

[GnomeKing]

more noob friendly

how noob friendly does it really need to be !?! - jump cpu+system-block is hardly an obstacle to the game .... :/

 

[Benevolent27]

how noob friendly does it really need to be !?! - jump cpu+system-block is hardly an obstacle to the game .... :/

Did I say the game needed to be more noob friendly?

Nope.

But I think due to differences of opinions and to allow differences in servers, such as some servers having more simplified gameplay compared to other servers with more complicated gameplay.. it'd be useful to leave it as an option for admins. Is this unreasonable?

 

[petlahk]

Alternative solutions instead of requiring every single ship have a jump chamber.

1) Small ships (reactor level 0-1) have jump drives built in and don't require a chamber

2) Power required to run jump drives scales really hard with higher ship/reactor masses. - Needs a basic jump chamber to overcome that effect.

3) Have it tied to chamber distance from the reactor somehow. Maybe it charges faster if the chambers are placed farther from the reactor.

Basically, I love the built in reactors and scanners. Particularly for small ships. I'm not opposed to having a block requirement for larger ships in the form of chamber blocks. I just really don't want to go back to the stupid filling effect of the old ftl system, and would like the ability to jump small ships without a chamber.

The above ideas apply pretty well to scanners as well. With the exception that scanner range could be tied to chamber distances for extended range.
[doublepost=1512754583,1512754100][/doublepost]

It also worth noting that having a "built-in" jump drive eliminated any and and all hope for a less rеtаrdеd and more practical FTL engine.
Instead of adding new mechanic they removed most of the old one. Sure, it had it's downsides, but this is just too much.
In addition they killed the chain-drives as well, because everyone loves wasting time going through boring empty space from point A on one end of the galaxy to B on the other, right?
I mean, it gives you time to appreciate the devs' work and take in the sights... sights like the boring as fuck systems with marginal differences and goofy planets, sights like NPC ships and stations that might as well be not be there for all the exciting gameplay they provide, or the breathtaking spacetime anomalies that function as naturally occurring indestructible warpgates, if warpgates were completely useless for their intended purpose.

What they could have done instead is to subject the FTL engine to the same-ish treatment reactors got - separate it into two distinct blocks and use FTL engine-specific (or maybe just reuse reactor's?) chambers for the bells and whistles like interdiction and energy consumption optimization.
That way you have the FTL engine core aka "battery" and a charger. More chargers - more energy dumped into battery. Bigger battery - longer range for jumpdrives, higher speed for warpdrives, with mass acting as a multiplier for the "FTL charge" needed.
Hell, you could add a chamber that increases energy cost but negates N-strength interdiction, allowing creating of blockade runners.

Oh well, at least we don't have to bother with jump drive modules, I guess.

I partially agree with your idea. The idea of making FTL it's own separate, interesting mechanic but am opposed to how you insulted everyone in thd comment.

 

[petlahk]

Yes, that would make more sense. It would also add one more possibility for customization, by leaving out jump in favor of a very short-range ship with extra power in another area.

Alternatively, you could rename reactors "warp cores" or something similar, as this functionality seems very similar to Star Trek. Obviously you can't just steal the name, but the gist of it fits.



This isn't as much of an issue since a scanner is an electronic system and suspension of disbelief is easier even when it's very tiny. However, cramming a high-end sensor suite into that little magic box is still pretty weird. They certainly don't need to be large, but some physical representation would be preferable for higher-end sensors.

I think the best solution would be to give all ships a very basic scanner but require a chamber to make it do anything beyond the most basic functionality.

The same could be said for stealth drive. Any ship could change settings to minimize emissions and make itself harder to spot with basic built-in sensors, but even that wouldn't work terribly well and couldn't hide you from any sort of upgraded sensor suite.

I just wanna point out that high end scanners do require chambers and RC.