First, let me re-iterate my point: using stabilser efficiency below 100% means you can produce more power for the same mass. Simple as that.
There are of course exceptions that won't benefit, e.g. unhulled ships, ultra-thin rod forms, etc.
I've demonstrated this over and over and over here with in-game screenshots, and there now appears to be no-one in the thread still directly claiming otherwise.
For reasons I have already explained, namely Reactor HP you would be better off leaving that space emtpy rather then increase the size of your reactors.
I have no problem with empty space. It was you proposing solutions to get rid of it.
Better to have empty space then a more vulnerable ship.
You were proposing increasing reactor size to avoid empty space (which is something that a larger reactor will only increase).
As I said before, increasing increasing your reactor size makes you more vulnerable to RHP damage due to a larger area that someone can hit, less blocks then can hit to cause damamge is better.
Certainly. Smaller reactors make smaller RHP targets, and produce less power.
Your suggestion and what you are trying to teach newer players is making ships more vulnerable, if for whatever reason you cannot power the systems within the volume then it is better to have emtpy space then to decrease efficiency, causing more blocks to be required to achieve desired power and thus making ships more vulnerable.
I have no interest in finding ways to avoid empty volume.
I have a huge amount of interest in producing more power for the same mass.
Jojomo, I strongly encourage you to gain an understanding of basic game mechanics and power before you continue to spread misinformation to other players.
I suggest you do more building in systems 2.0 before attempting to discuss it.
For the sake of preventing the spreading is misinformation, allow me to show you all why Jojomo's method of building is a poor design choice and makes any ship you build weaker and less efficient.
I haven't given a method of buiding. I've demonstrated the advantages possible from lower stabiliser efficiency.
Firstly, so we are all up to speed, this is what has been said about how you should build 2.0 power.
According to Jojomo, the way you should build ships including all power is to have your reactors at low efficiency (less then 100%), according to him the reason for this is so that you have "the lightest ship possible"
I haven't said that. Don't attribute false quotes to me.
Stabiliser efficency lower than 100% means (for most ships) that more power for the same mass is possible.
Allow me to give several points as to why this building method is a terrible idea.
Lower efficiency means more blocks are required to gain the amount of power generation you need, more efficient requires less blocks. Having more power blocks then nessicary gives enemy ships a larger area (because there are more blocks) where they can do reactor hp damage, in order for your ships to as safe as possible from RHP damage, you must have as little blocks in your reactor as possible so that hostile ships have less places they can do RHP damage, 100% efficiency means less blocks required to get your needed power generation.
Good grief.
I'm proposing lower stabiliser efficiency. I.e. more stabiliser blocks.
Have you built in systems 2.0?
Stabiliser blocks don't contribute to RHP...
Jojomo has attempted to justify his building method by claiming that you will have a lot of "empty space" in the volume of your hull, his soltuion to the "problem" of emtpy space
(which is not even much of a problem to being with) is to decrease reactor efficiency and fill up those "gaps" with reactors. As I explained above, this makes your ship more vulnerable to reactor HP damage
and thus any ship built using Jojomo's method is much more prone to being destroyed then a ship that uses the more rational method of 100% efficiency reactors.
You do know the difference between reactor efficiency and stabiliser efficiency I hope?
I'm showing the benefits of lower stabiliser efficiency, not reactor efficiency.
Another justifacation used was that his method would make your ship "lighter" however what is not taken into account is the fact that a ship being "lighter" does not automaticly make it better, what makes your ship preform is the amount of weapons, defences, mobility and utility systems it has, not its weight.
Lower stabilisation efficiency means more power for the same mass.
Allow me to explain how you should build your reactors.
Firstly, you are not by any means required to cover your ship in a hull, as a matter of fact the current meta for combat builds uses little to no hull (Spaghetti Builds)
Absolutely.
If you decide to use hull, just keep in mind that if your reactors are not generating enough power to power all the sytems in the volume of your hull, you can increase the power it generates or remove systems within the volume.
...of course....
If chose to increase power of your reactor, because you are using 100% efficiency reactors, you require less blocks placed in order to achieve your desired power generation, less blocks means you are less vulnerable to RHP damage.
Really starting to look like most of what you've said in this thread has been based on you not realising that stabiliser efficiency and reactor efficiency are not the same thing.
Personally I would never build with reactor efficiency below 100%.
If you decide to remove power heavy systems (which is generaly the worser alternative to simply increasing the avaliable power of your reactor) and end up with an emtpy space in the volume of your ship, then there is nothing wrong with it aside from the wasted space, you can fill this gap with systems that do not take power or even use that space for an interior for you RP builders out there.
Yep, definitely can.
I'll finish with my point again:
Using stabilser efficiency below 100% means you can produce more power for the same mass. Simple as that.
There are of course exceptions that won't benefit, e.g. unhulled ships, ultra-thin rod forms, etc.
I've demonstrated this over and over and over here with in-game screenshots, and there now appears to be no-one in the thread still directly claiming otherwise.