HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[GDPR 302420]

You learnt after 3 or 4 pages that I was actually talking about stabiliser efficiency, not reactor efficiency, which is a good step RedAlert.

My point is whatever I decide it is, not whatever you decide it is.

A wise man named Mortiferum once said: "You have the freedom of speech, I too, have the freedom to call out your bullshit"
[doublepost=1512295234,1512295171][/doublepost]

what even does a high e/s to mass ratio even do????? tell me why ANYONE should care about it

On its own, absolutely nothing, because a ships effectiveness is not solely influenced by how much power it produces per mass.

 

[Jojomo]

A wise man named Mortiferum once said: "You have the freedom of speech, I too, have the freedom to call out your bullshit"

Ok, so you won't be proving your point (I'm wrong) then?

It's a simple suggestion: a 100% SE ship that fits the description that I say my point applies to, that I will then modify to have a better power/mass ratio.

I've been offering this opportunity since page 1. If I'm wrong just show everyone that I am.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

Ok, so you won't be proving your point (I'm wrong) then?

It's a simple suggestion: a 100% SE ship that fits the description that I say my point applies to, that I will then modify to have a better power/mass ratio.

I've been offering this opportunity since page 1.

we are questioning why its even useful to try to meet those goals, were saying its pointless and means nothing even if you can get a high e/s to mass ratio. and that building to optimise for a e/s to mass ratio effectly gimps your ship and makes it innefeciant at whatever you would want it to do reguardless of what you want it to do except have a shiney e/s to mass ratio. at this point i see having a high e/s to mass ratio as A BAD THING as it likely means the rest of the ship sucks at everything.

at this point its the same as deciding that having the smallest or largest possable surface area is the be all end all of ship design when the truth is both those are irrelevent to how the ship performs and building to minimise or maximise surface area is only going to serve to build a crappy ship. but sure, nobody else can come up with a better way to minimise/maximise surface area so it must be the greatest thing since sliced bread, and any attempts to convince you that surface area is rediculas only gets a responce of "well you make something with a better surface area ratio to prove me wrong"

 

[GDPR 302420]

You can always guarantee, 100%, that you have space for your systems. This is a strawman.

"Oh shit, I am starting to loose this internet argument, his logical reasoning and facts are proving me wrong... oh shit I gotta find I way to turn this around... Oh I know! I will just throw debate jargon at him to avoid having to address the actual argument"

Your logical fallacy is the fallacy fallacy

It's a simple suggestion: a 100% SE ship that fits the description that I say my point applies to, that I will then modify to have a better power/mass ratio.

Again, you are avoiding the entire point, please re-read my responses carefully as it is evident that you have not even read them.

As The_Owl already said

"Anyone can win [an argument on the internet] if they impose a set of pointless, arbitry requirements that are flawed themselves"

 

[Jojomo]

"Oh shit, I am starting to loose this internet argument, his logical reasoning and facts are proving me wrong... oh shit I gotta find I way to turn this around... Oh I know! I will just throw debate jargon at him to avoid having to address the actual argument"

By all means, continue this argument.

If the LSE for a ship would mean not enough room for systems (say for an extreme LSE like 10%) the incredibly simple solution to this "problem" is to use a less extreme SE. You still get better power/mass ratio by lowering your SE, and you guarantee room for your systems.

Again, you are avoiding the entire point, please re-read my responses carefully as it is evident that you have not even read them.

As The_Owl already said

"Anyone can win [an argument on the internet] if they impose a set of pointless, arbitry requirements that are flawed themselves"

I've read them all.

Not a single one has contradicted this, or even directly attempted to contradict it: SE lower than 100% means higher power/mass ratio (extreme designs like unhulled or ultra-thin rods, etc, excluded).

 

[Chances_Ghost]

Not a single one has contradicted this, or even directly attempted to contradict it: SE lower than 100% means higher power/mass ratio (extreme designs like unhulled or ultra-thin rods, etc, excluded).

were not trying to contradict it, were trying to point out that its both meaningless and creates an infiror ship to build this way all your doing is trying to minimise surface area

 

[The_Owl]

Go make a ship using motherboard as it's hull.

 

[Jojomo]

were not trying to contradict it,...<snip>

I hope RedAlert will confirm that, but until he does I'll assume you don't speak for him.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

e/s to mass ratio is meaningless, end of story. please dont give advice to improve e/s to mass to people, as its crappy advice.

 

[NeonSturm]

Jojomo is right and his opponents are right too. It's all just a little bit missunderstanding here.

You can make either a stabilizer 100% efficient or a ship 100% efficient, but not both. And that was the point Jojomo tried to defend.

Unless you build a ship which is not just a boxy stick but a real stick or just 2 separate ships which belong to the same entity, you cannot use the full potential.
EXCEPT you don't care about your thrust ratio ... then you can slab as much armor on it as you want and have a sitting duck, congratz!

You fight over oppinions "what a ship should be like" here.

 

[Zoolimar]

Go make a ship using motherboard as it's hull.

That no longer works. Lancake changed decor blocks to weight 0.05 same as hull.

 

[Jojomo]

Jojomo is right and his opponents are right too. It's all just a little bit missunderstanding here.

You can make either a reactor 100% efficient or a ship 100% efficient, but not both. And that was the point Jojomo tried to defend.

Unless you build a ship which is not just a boxy stick but a real stick or just 2 separate ships which belong to the same entity, you cannot use the full potential.
EXCEPT you don't care about your thrust ratio ... then you can slab as much armor on it as you want and have a sitting duck, congratz!

Not really.

I'm not talking about reactor efficiency, I'm talking about stabiliser efficiency (it's a common point of confusion in this thread).

And you'd need to define what you mean by entire ship efficiency: if it uses total block count or mass then what I'm talking about would by definition have a better "efficiency".

 

[The_Owl]

That no longer works. Lancake changed decor blocks to weight 0.05 same as hull.

Nice to see lancake completely getting rid of any interesting choices and motherboards only useful feature

 

[NeonSturm]

I'm not talking about reactor efficiency, I'm talking about stabiliser efficiency.

And stabilizers are part of the ractor group

And you'd need to define what you mean by entire ship efficiency: if it uses total block count or mass then what I'm talking about would by definition have a better "efficiency".

I defined it by thrust ratio + shields.
[doublepost=1512297139,1512297062][/doublepost]

Nice to see lancake completely getting rid of any interesting choices and motherboards only useful feature

I want different colour choices on hull. it's a good move from him.
Perhaps the mass difference between armour types isn't high enough if that's a problem.

 

[Zoolimar]

Perhaps the mass difference between armour types isn't high enough if that's a problem.

All of them are too heavy for what they give you.

 

[Jojomo]

And stabilizers are part of the ractor group

Yes but systems 2.0 power systems have both reactor efficiency and stabiliser efficiency, and they're not the same thing (I can't imagine many people ever considering a reactor efficiency below 100% though).

I defined it by thrust ratio + shields.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand what you mean. Could you give a pair of examples?

 

[The_Owl]

I want different colour choices on hull. it's a good move from him.
Perhaps the mass difference between armour types isn't high enough if that's a problem.

The ONLY reason to use motherboards was their weight, which was completely balanced by their awful health. It made them a "4th hull" choice on ships, but with a tradeoff.

What Lan has done is made them useless, reducing Variety, Making all old stealth ships obsolete in one short and quick move and forcing more ship designs YET AGAIN.

and i fail to see how making motherboard heavier gives other hulls more colour?

 

[Zoolimar]

Making all old stealth ships obsolete in one short and quick move and forcing more ship designs YET AGAIN.

You no longer care for mass of the stealth ship in dev build. It depends only on chambers, no ?

 

[GDPR 302420]

What Lan has done is made them useless, reducing Variety, Making all old stealth ships obsolete in one short and quick move and forcing more ship designs YET AGAIN.

Hey Schine, wasnt the point of Systems 2.0 to remove forced design choices? Because it seems all you have done is changed those forced design choices and added a few more.

 

[The_Owl]

You no longer care for mass of the stealth ship in dev build. It depends only on chambers, no ?

It may be, but almost all old stealth ships used motherboard because it was light. IT also would've still given the advantage of less weight and more thrust, so it could still be useful in a niche. Now it's useless and confined to almost never being used, possibly even more than several decoration blocks as it looks like trash.