HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[FlyingDebris]

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

well I disagree, you're excluding potentially far more efficient designs that prove you wrong and can outdo yours on the basis of them not 'feeling' like the ships that you're used to.

 

[Jojomo]

well I disagree, you're excluding potentially far more efficient designs that prove you wrong and can outdo yours on the basis of them not 'feeling' like the ships that you're used to.

I don't know (or care) what you think you're disagreeing with.

 

[GDPR 302420]

I don't know or care what you think you're disagreeing with.

Nobody cares that you don't care, all I care about is that you are wrong and you are spreading misinformation.

 

[Jojomo]

Nobody cares that you don't care, all I care about is that you are wrong and you are spreading misinformation.

If I am feel free to enlighten
me by posting a ship with 100% SE according to the guidelines in my post on page one, that I can't modify to have a better power/mass ratio by reducing SE.

 

[GDPR 302420]

If I am please enlighten me: Post a ship with 100% SE according to the guidelines in my post on page one, that I can't modify to have a better power/mass ratio by reducing SE.

Please read my previous response to every single time you have said that.

You cleary are not even reading others posts, maybe that is why you are hyper resistant to any suggsetion that you are wrong.

 

[Jojomo]

Please read my previous response to every single time you have said that.

You cleary are not even reading others posts, maybe that is why you are hyper resistant to any suggsetion that you are wrong.

I believe your previous response, paraphrased for clarity, was along the lines of "I won't do that, because I can't"?

Because my only claim is that (non-extreme) conventional designs can improve their power/mass ratio by reducing SE, unless you can show otherwise, the status quo will remain.

 

[GDPR 302420]

"I won't do that, because I can't"

Ehh no that wasnt what I said at all.

Seeing as you cleary cannot read other posts, I will sum it up for you.

You are missing the entire point of why your design choice is dumb, your claim that you can take a ship I make and give it more power has nothng to do with the reasons why your design is dumb.

 

[FlyingDebris]

If I am feel free to enlighten
me: Post a ship with 100% SE according to the guidelines in my post on page one, that I can't modify to have a better power/mass ratio by reducing SE.

How about I don't use hull because I'm not required to.

 

[nulitor]

Armor is not needed.
If you want protective blocks you either use capsules chaff(against missiles) or shields(against low firepower ships) or use huge cool looking decoration(because it have an actual purpose in social interaction and can dilute the shots) Or just place more trust.
But armor is right now a bad idea for protection: you should use it only on decorations and only if it makes your ship more beautiful.
The best protection right now is not blocs: it is the lack of them: if there is nowhere to hit then opponents have a hard time hitting.
By removing hull and making 100% efficiency reactor and thus having a ship that is two spheres far away from each other you are making your ship more tanky because it gets a lot of empty space.

 

[Jojomo]

How about I don't use hull because I'm not required to.

Then you need to find someone else to show your design to.

Unhulled ships are completely unrelated to anything I've discussed: for non-extreme conventional designs the SE that gives the best power/mass ratio will be below 100%

 

[FlyingDebris]

Then you need to find someone else to show your design to.

Unhulled ships are completely unrelated to anything I've discussed: for non-extreme conventional designs the SE that gives the best power/mass ratio will be below 100%

Why are extreme designs unincluded? They function perfectly fine and if this is a discussion about how to build a ship I'll be damned if we don't demonstrate how to build the best ships regardless of your personal opinions on them.

 

[GnomeKing]

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

as talked about previously...but still 2.0 power is poor solution to many issues; disconnected entities for one...

It will be trivially easy, for example, to connect up widely spaced system balls (same for XYZ spaghetti anyway) , so unless this connection has to function like a 'conduit' (ie loss of function if cut) then i don't see what solution exists to the connection problem simply through a connection rule, though this seems a fundamental rule to start with (other approaches are also needed simultaneously)

Full ship-skins could be made a real factor (eg persistent environmental damaged to exposed systems) - but still the underlying meta shape is predictable, and I am already a bit BORED of ships with big bunches of reactors near the backside, and a big balloon of stabilizers somewhere as a nose...yawn.

 

[Ithirahad]

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

All spaghetti-ships are unconventional builds, but not every unconventional build is a spaghetti ship. Remember - things can float. Say, for the sake of argument, I chose to cover everything in hull, whether or not I have any good reason to. Even with that being the case, if I didn't have a big solid empty hull between my reactor and stabilizers - say, if I used a thin 'stem' as seen on Klingon Birds of Prey, or simply let the reactor side and the stabilizer float separately - then Jojomo's example:

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).

...begins to break down. You aren't getting a "smaller and lighter" hull; the hull has to encompass more stabilizers now so it's actually going to be heavier.

And this is all ignoring the very real option of simply not hulling everything - or not hulling anything (except maybe the front facing of the ship).

 

[The Judge]

tbh armor needs a major buff so its actually useful

 

[MrGrey1]

Discussing the deck chairs on the Titanic... sitting here bitching over the finer points of whether a long dong is better then a long dong that's slightly shorter... I only got a few pages in before I gave up because frankly, I am far more concerned that I'm being forced by game mechanics, into using a dong, of any length... How about discussing the fact that now it is compulsory to use a dong and there's no other choice of ship that's competitive? You can't use a saucer. you can't use a sphere or a cube. You can't use any ship that approaches equal dimensions period. You can't use any ship that has two dimensions greater then the third unless you're ok with being inefficient. You must use a ship with one long dimension. All these builds that you can't do anymore. A major reduction in choice and design options! It is broken. BADLY!
My fleet of 20+ flying saucers I use for pirates are apparently all now scrap. Useful functional designs in v1 have been made obsolete and unviable by a major failure in the game design.... it's a frickin' space ship building game where a flying saucer appears to have just become a dysfunctional build ffs! Who cares about how long the dong is when you're getting shafted with it!?

My understanding at least, of the justification for power v2, was to give more design choice. I may be missing something here but from where I'm sitting this is the exact opposite of what power v2 currently achieves. There may be more choice in what sort of systems your dong has, but. you. will. use. a. Dong!.. BORKeN!
V2 is unacceptable to me in it's current form and unless people enjoy flying around in a universe full of dongs it should be unacceptable to everyone. Being forced to use dongs over any other design is what should be front and center of the discussion. Nothing else is really relevant until that issue is resolved. If it goes unresolved... well, it'll be a universe full of dongs flown by dongs and then will be the appropriate time for all the dongs to bitch about who's dong is better.

MrG.

 

[Daro_Khan]

/ME PONDERS

I dont have much time to read all 11 pages. But here is my 2 cents.

I figure out how much power my main weapons and turrets will take. How much BANG I want on my ship.
I Figure out how much Shield cap/Regen I want.
I figure out roughly how fast/maneuverable I want much ship thus how armored it will be and how much thruster I need aka the power cost for thrust
Then do reactor tests on the side to figure out my size plus reactor/stab relationship.

And as long as I can get the power I WANT/NEED to power my design I could care less about reactor/stabilizer Efficiency.

And Honestly, I think this logic is rather reasonable.....if my reactor power whats I want? I dont need anymore power.

If i want more power? that means I want more weapons/ or shields. or speed. or something.
and then that's just a new ship that gets made that fills another role. So yeah......

p.s If i want to turn well, id add that to my design choice to not make my ship so long.

 

[Kelpaz]

/ME PONDERS

I dont have much time to read all 11 pages. But here is my 2 cents.

I figure out how much power my main weapons and turrets will take. How much BANG I want on my ship.
I Figure out how much Shield cap/Regen I want.
I figure out roughly how fast/maneuverable I want much ship thus how armored it will be and how much thruster I need aka the power cost for thrust
Then do reactor tests on the side to figure out my size plus reactor/stab relationship.

And as long as I can get the power I WANT/NEED to power my design I could care less about reactor/stabilizer Efficiency.

And Honestly, I think this logic is rather reasonable.....if my reactor power whats I want? I dont need anymore power.

If i want more power? that means I want more weapons/ or shields. or speed. or something.
and then that's just a new ship that gets made that fills another role. So yeah......

p.s If i want to turn well, id add that to my design choice to not make my ship so long.

If you have tried making a ship in the recent dev builds you would know that you need extreme distance between the reactor and stabilizers if you want to power anything more than shields and thrusters.
The new shield mechanics forces you to add more regen if you make the shield capacity over a certain size which drains more power infact I made an image that explains the problem:

 

[Daro_Khan]

If you have tried making a ship in the recent dev builds you would know that you need extreme distance between the reactor and stabilizers if you want to power anything more than shields and thrusters.
The new shield mechanics forces you to add more regen if you make the shield capacity over a certain size which drains more power infact I made an image that explains the problem:

robertkor

Very neat!. I was curious how the new shields world.

Id still be able to make a new ship though.......regardless but yeah.

Only trick we have no baseline of what ships be fighting what ships at what power. What would cost X resources. So at face value I have lost all clarity on whats BIG and expensive vs what is small and affordable. Not to mention all of this changing in the universe update and weapon update.

Hmm. and am sure the devs still want to optimize sectors based off of the 2KM Cubed.... sector size.

I think stabilizers might be making ships to long? with its current settings? but again my thinking goes back full circle. How big is big. What is small, what is middle ground. How much of what can i get. Soo many questions...

p.s If no one has figured this out. I am a person of logistics, and scalability, reliability and strategic thinking/planning.

So while long dong ships are cool/not cool. I still need to see the rest of the puzzle to get a clear picture on stabs.

They may be bad when viewed from our broken rusty ass glasses. But what about the other updates? that we have yet to see? (weapons/universe/crew/armor get gud?/turret? and so on.....) Trying to balance something based of off current factors when all factors will be/changed plus new ones we have yet to hear about?...just thoughts
Lancake

 

[Kelpaz]

Not only have I tried refitting my own ships but I made a futile attempt at re configuring a Trade faction frigate, I posted an image of that already in a thread in the suggestions: Remove Stabilizers

Thing is I was unsuccessful even after reducing all systems to almost nothing, the problem is not just the stabilizers but the fact that weapon systems takes to much upkeep just sitting there.

It's a shame really that they are doing these system changes hoping that it would end some "exploits"

 

[Scypio]

well, it'll be a universe full of dongs flown by dongs and then will be the appropriate time for all the dongs to bitch about who's dong is better.

No. Who's got the biggest and longest might be more accurate. Also mine is bigger than yours.