HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[Non]

Pretty good post except for this point. Up until recently the meta was about minimizing your volume as much as possible by using as much clipped docked entities as possible to increase your ship's power without increasing your target profile and still looked relatively ship shaped, yes, until people realized you could also reduce your target profile by making your ship into hundreds or thousands of thin strands.

You are correct, but use of spaghetti isn't very wide and spaghetti can only get so big before aux starts to make it a little brittle.

 

[Lecic]

You are correct, but use of spaghetti isn't very wide and spaghetti can only get so big before aux starts to make it a little brittle.

Nah, you can make aux pretty sturdy. Here's an example I just threw together quick of some spaghetti aux with forcefield laminate. Not perfectly efficient, but I have my build dims set to 250 max and was feeling lazy.

Pre-Damage

After poking it with my laser pistol

Still all in one group, even.

 

[Non]

Nah, you can make aux pretty sturdy. Here's an example I just threw together quick of some spaghetti aux with forcefield laminate. Not perfectly efficient, but I have my build dims set to 250 max and was feeling lazy.

Pls stop, you get what I'm trying to say, I understand your points, lets not argue, there are less informed people who need to be convinced of things.

 

[Jojomo]

Oh, also, I would love if Jojomo would actually respond to me this time. You seem to have skipped me last time bud.

On topics that get people emotional I have a lot of posts looking for my input, but I'm not willing to put in the time to answer every single one.
Any that contain abusive garbage (at me or anyone else) go straight to the bottom of the pile.
Posts that contain a lot of OT content are also pretty low priority.

You know perfectly well that I'm aware of spaghetti meta and want to see it gone Lecic. We've discussed it in the past.

Spaghetti is already slated for destruction by Schine, I'm interested in discussing designs in what will remain afterwards.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Dumbbells will remain afterwards, and hull won't be required unless schine does something drastic (and probably stupid)

 

[Lecic]

Spaghetti is already slated for destruction by Schine, I'm interested in discussing designs in what will remain afterwards.

Fair enough. I still disagree with your method even with traditional ship shapes, however. True, your method DOES save mass overall, but only when you don't account for other systems beyond hull and power gen.

 

[Jojomo]

Fair enough. I still disagree with your method even with traditional ship shapes, however. True, your method DOES save mass overall, but only when you don't account for other systems beyond hull and power gen.

It isn't necessary to include other systems because you can apply the mechanic while keeping reactor output comstant (and therefore all other systems constant - well except for systems that depend on total ship mass, but that will only enhance the mechanic I'm showing)

In other words, the only masses being affected by the change are stabiliser mass and hull mass. Nothing else is affected.

From that we can say that this mechanic allows the same power generation for less total mass, which is logically equivalent to saying more power for the same mass. Or to to sum it up simply: a better power/mass ratio.

 

[NeonSturm]

Wrong. We already covered this. This is only true if you pretend hull is a requirement. Which it is not. You can build a ship that has both.

The word you should be remembering right now is

SPAGHETTI.

Please quote my whole post. I added exceptions for when you don't care about hull.
Only trolls pick a single sentence out of context to be able to give negative feedbacks.​

 

[Jojomo]

Spoiler: A joke

You can put something thicc between them balls, son. Let'em know who is boss.

Okay, I'm going to keep asking for clarification so those following the thread can have summaries on what the arguments are. This again is assuming a single enclosed volume.

Alright so higher mass vs e/s can be achieved by sacrificing volume. My question is what is the advantage of a lower mass with less space for systems, and is higher power advantegious when you have less space for systems?

In other words:

Is the demand of power within a volume generally high enough to use less volume for more power, because demand outstrips supply?

Or is power generation easy to supply, and you need the volume to use up that supply?

This again is assuming a single enclosed volume and a combat ship.

Here's some evidence that may answer your question for you Top 4ce. It isn't definitive and exhaustive proof of anything, it's just a reasonable indication of the trends you can expect with respect to volume in systems 2.0.

Here's one of the ships I posted a while back, but now it's loaded with enough shield rechargers to consume all the power gen.

As a reminder, this is a 20x10x5=1000 reactor with a single layer of standard armour on three sides. Stabiliser efficiency is approximately 60%

 

[Snowtiger256]

Please clarify exactly what you want to know and I shall attempt to make a coherent response.

Thank you for this, I was just looking for a general insight on what you consider as the Balance, I will get back to you if I have any questions about specific things on Balance.

"The balance" is a catchall term to describe the way all of the systems in the game are currently "balanced" against eachother. If you're asking what specifically everything that comprises the balance is, well, that's a little hard, but the overall gist of it is that the top of the food chain is a spaghetti ship. I highly suggest you look at a ship like "Fair And Balanced" to get a better idea of the meta. There are some other users who could explain the concept better, but essentially, if hull is unnecessary, nothing needs to be connected, and many systems benefit or have no downsides to being stretched out like this, you only gain effectiveness, as it's essentially the same as if you had 99% ion effect, because so much damage goes right through you without even touching. AI can't keep up with it, missiles go right through it, and players can't even hope to aim at it.

So, these Spaghetti ships have a form of blowthrough invulnerability, unless the opponent can get close enough to actually target specific systems on the ship, it will win in most fights. Of course any other kind of ship will be thoroughly blown to pieces well before it gets to the point where it can effectively target the Spaghettified systems, instead of just spitting fire at it and hoping it will hit something. That's very easy to understand. Thank you for this.

 

[Dire Venom]

Just a thought thats probably already been covered, why can't we simply just directly link total stabilizor effciencey to ship mass:?
[The more mass, the more stabilizors you need to keep your reactor at max effciencey.]
I know mass isn't a highly accurate value, but at least it would be more bearable than what we have now (in the dev build).

Theres always the issue with superlight builds (spaghetti) and armour struggling to bring a whole lot for it's mass though.

 

[Lecic]

It isn't necessary to include other systems because you can apply the mechanic while keeping reactor output comstant (and therefore all other systems constant - well except for systems that depend on total ship mass, but that will only enhance the mechanic I'm showing)

In other words, the only masses being affected by the change are stabiliser mass and hull mass. Nothing else is affected.

From that we can say that this mechanic allows the same power generation for less total mass, which is logically equivalent to saying more power for the same mass. Or to to sum it up simply: a better power/mass ratio.

But you need to put your systems somewhere. Hull mass is only increasing if you assume you only have hull. The space between the stabilizers and reactor is where all your chambers, shields, weapons, thrust, etc go.

 

[Jojomo]

But you need to put your systems somewhere. Hull mass is only increasing if you assume you only have hull. The space between the stabilizers and reactor is where all your chambers, shields, weapons, thrust, etc go.

I'm not sure if I'm getting your meaning exactly, but if for example you:

take a ship that is reactor, stabilisers at 100% SE, hull to cover the power systems, and then enough systems to consume all power (say just a big group of shields for argument's sake),

and then modify the ship:,
move the stabilisers closer to the reactor (there's still heaps of room for your shield group), add some more stabilisers to bring reactor output back up to max, then trim off all the hull now in front of the stabilisers.

After this modification your reactor is unchanged (and so is your power output), your stabiliser group has gotten bigger and heavier, your hull has gotten smaller and lighter, your shield group (systems) is unchanged (and is still consuming exactly 100% of the power produced, because power output is unchanged).

If we say that stabilisers became 100 mass heavier, and hull became 500 mass lighter, the total ship has become lighter by 400 mass - and if we did exactly the same experiment but without bothering to put the shields in we'd still see exactly the same result of the total ship getting 400 lighter.
Because the shield block stayed constant, it had no effect on the outcome, so it isn't necessary to actually put it in - we know it stays constant.

Possibly I've been confusing the issue a bit (apologies if so) because although the examples I post are ships with constant power getting lighter, I most often describe the mechanic as a ship with the same mass getting more power.
But these are logically equivalent (in SM at least), so it doesn't matter which way you say it (or show it).

 

[Top 4ce]

But you need to put your systems somewhere. Hull mass is only increasing if you assume you only have hull. The space between the stabilizers and reactor is where all your chambers, shields, weapons, thrust, etc go.

Possibly I've been confusing the issue a bit (apologies if so) because although the examples I post are ships with constant power getting lighter, I most often describe the mechanic as a ship with the same mass getting more power.
But these are logically equivalent (in SM at least), so it doesn't matter which way you say it (or show it).

It seems that yes, Jo's method reduces mass, it does so by sacrificing volume.

Lecic's argument is that the volume sacrificed is too important, and outweighs the reduction in mass.

There's also the argument that building along one axis at 100% gives you best of all worlds, at the cost of a long length, which brings limitation in effective builds.

This is all assuming conventional building and not such things as spaghetti building.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Why are we assuming conventional building

 

[Scypio]

Because everyone build conventionnal and the ones that don't should feel bad and be banned from the game.

 

[Jojomo]

It seems that yes, Jo's method reduces mass, it does so by sacrificing volume.

Lecic's argument is that the volume sacrificed is too important, and outweighs the reduction in mass.

There's so much unused volume in 2.0 that it really isn't a concern.

Here's my earlier indication of how much empty space you could still have in a build with 60% SE:

It may be the case that a very extreme SE like 10% could reduce volume by too much, but ships that could support an LSE of 10% in the first place would be rare designs (massively armoured), and even if it occured you'd just use an SE a bit higher and avoid the issue entirely.

Any SE between 100% and the LSE will improve your power/mass ratio, you aren't forced to only use the LSE.

There's also the argument that building along one axis at 100% gives you best of all worlds, at the cost of a long length, which brings limitation in effective builds.

.

I don't know what that argument is. 100% SE means a worse power/mass ratio than you could have (extreme designs excepted as usual).

 

[FlyingDebris]

There's so much unused volume in 2.0 that it really isn't a concern.

Here's my earlier indication of how much empty space you could still have in a build with 60% SE:

It may be the case that a very extreme SE like 10% could reduce volume by too much, but ships that could support an LSE of 10% in the first place would be rare designs (massively armoured), and even if it occured you'd just use an SE a bit higher and avoid the issue entirely.

Any SE between 100% and the LSE will improve your power/mass ratio, you aren't forced to only use the LSE.



I don't know what that argument is. 100% SE means a worse power/mass ratio than you could have (extreme designs excepted as usual).

Hey Jojomo, why are we assuming conventional building?

 

[Top 4ce]

Why are we assuming conventional building

Because we're fools, and all hope spaghetti is dealt with?

 

[Jojomo]

Hey Jojomo, why are we assuming conventional building?

This mechanic is about conventional builds. It's trading stabiliser mass against hull mass.