HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

    Joined
    Oct 8, 2016
    Messages
    105
    Reaction score
    35
    I believe motherboard was obsolete a long time ago.
    Try dolom capsules and Scaffold.
    more hp per mass and low mass.(and way cheaper in the case of the dolom capsule)
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    I believe motherboard was obsolete a long time ago.
    Try dolom capsules and Scaffold.
    more hp per mass and low mass.(and way cheaper in the case of the dolom capsule)
    No-one here cares about mass mate! :-p
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    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.
    But we don't need 4 choices in hull strength ... perhaps if hp were a bit more it could be used because of it's texture.
     

    The_Owl

    Alpha is not an excuse
    Joined
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages
    325
    Reaction score
    293
    But we don't need 4 choices in hull strength ... perhaps if hp were a bit more it could be used because of it's texture.
    i don't ever want to use the ugliest block in the game except for the advantage it had, which was low weight.
    Nobody was calling it unbalanced, nobody was asking for a change and yet now we've got a change that completely makes it pointless? Why? Did "ThE nUmBeRs WoRk"? why? it just makes it useless and LIMITS design choices.
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    i don't ever want to use the ugliest block in the game except for the advantage it had, which was low weight.
    Haha, there you got a reason!

    You shouldn't have to resort to ugly blocks.
     
    Joined
    Oct 8, 2016
    Messages
    105
    Reaction score
    35
    It is so that instead of covering your ships you let them naked.
    I mean this game is not about armor.
    The game devs does not really want players to use armor else they would make armor more useful.
    Like giving more hp to armor.
    Or making armor be way cheaper.(so that it is not a pure waste of $)
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Hull and especially armour could generate Armour-HP which acts like a shield ... we already have this? yay!
    NO, the real problem (for some) is that offensive is focused and defensive is spread, making defence near useless.

    What helps would be an armour teleporter replenishing armour as needed and replacing blocks with healthy ones. Who cares about shield if the amour is already under fire!
     
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    353
    Reaction score
    162
    Hull and especially armour could generate Armour-HP which acts like a shield ... we already have this? yay!
    Only it doesn't make armor much better. In fact lower mass plus better protective capabilities of a single block would have been better, because then you could at least armor some critical locations. Armour HP is spread all over the ship and doesn't help in that regard.
     
    Joined
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages
    228
    Reaction score
    145
    It boils down to being able to have more power from the same mass, by dropping stabiliser efficiency.
    I'm not asking you to care about it, but SE below 100% typically allows better power/mass ratios, and as far as I can see a lot of people here have strong feelings about that.
    (I can't imagine many people ever considering a reactor efficiency below 100% though).
    ...indeed Power (total reactor and stabilizer system) at 100% must be assumed in any build that has not got mechanics wrong (until damaged)

    This system is workable for refitting existing hulls - if you don't mind spamming one end full of stabilizer :/ - but despite Jojomos correct reasoning (ie 'if you could fit 100%-distance-efficient stabilizer group in hull then likely the whole ship would be under-powered'), and others, and my own experiences messing with my own existing hulls in 2.0 - NEVER-THE-LESS, it just feels crude, basic and predictable :/

    building correctly (IMO :)), with a mind on the systems first, one gets pulled very easily to obvious and repetitive long boxy designs/tall boxy designs (for most 'normal ships') - and then comes the meta shapes .....of course this can be argued for 1.0 i suppose also ...

    However: under 1.0 Rod, T, X and 3-D Cross are all desirable shapes to work towards for a skeletal/threaded power system at high block-efficiency.Now however, there only 1 real meta-shape to work towards; o-------o

    My main design choice for a new ship (built systems first) is really just : how much do I dare/care to allow the shape to become just 2-balls-on-a-string ?!?
     

    Top 4ce

    Force or Ace?
    Joined
    Jul 25, 2013
    Messages
    527
    Reaction score
    274
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    My main design choice for a new ship (built systems first) is really just : how much do I dare/care to allow the shape to become just 2-balls-on-a-string ?!?
    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.
     
    Joined
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages
    534
    Reaction score
    195
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    This is the fundamental flaw with your argument. You are discarding the "exceptions" that prove your design philosophy wrong.

    Hull is unnecessary.

    The way to build a ship in Power 2.0 is the same as before. Max efficiency on a per mass scale is not achievable with a hull because you end up with a higher surface area to volume ratio to achieve that max efficiency, so you discard the hull. While you're at it, you might as well spread your systems far and wide in strands as well. Now shots pass right through you without even touching your systems, and any shots that do connect do minimal damage because they can't hit more than a few blocks.



    I refuse to let moderators censor me to benefit the ego of an inexperienced and inept RPer who continues to shill his flawed build method that has been proven to be untruthful.

    If the moderators want to comment on arguments over systems, they should learn the systems properly. If not, fuck off. Carebear "everyone can build how they want to and decide whats most efficient in their minds teehee :2hearts:" shit is not welcome. We are discussing the actual balance, and there is a black and white here of what is most efficient and what is not.
    Respectfully, I disagree.

    You are not being censored.

    If the developer had meant for all reactor construction to be identical stabilizers would deactivate rather than degrade at less than 100% efficiency.

    Moderators will not "**** off" as you say. Ever.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: NeonSturm
    Joined
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages
    353
    Reaction score
    162
    If the developer had meant for all reactor construction to be identical stabilizers would deactivate rather than degrade at less than 100% efficiency.
    Then there probably should have been other benefits for building them closer to a reactor besides a little more squat shape of a ship.

    Maybe there will be in further updates. But we work with what we have.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Is the demand of power within a volume generally high enough to use less volume for more power, because demand outstrips supply?
    In a nutshell, yes, this is the current situation.

    And any specific case where volume could be a problem thanks to an extreme LSE is trivially avoided: you use an SE slightly higher than the LSE to guarantee the volume you want, and your power/mass ratio still benefits from reducing your SE below 100%
     
    Last edited:

    FlyingDebris

    Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
    Joined
    Sep 6, 2013
    Messages
    2,458
    Reaction score
    1,312
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Councillor Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Respectfully, I disagree.

    You are not being censored.

    If the developer had meant for all reactor construction to be identical stabilizers would deactivate rather than degrade at less than 100% efficiency.

    Moderators will not "**** off" as you say. Ever.
    He (and others, myself included) are, just not by you in particular. I can PM evidence to you if you want.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    You can make either a stabilizer 100% efficient or a ship 100% efficient, but not both.
    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.

    You are not being censored.
    Correct, but only because you are currently not allowed to actually use your moderation powers yet as you are still in "training." By a moderator who would and has 100% given points for calling someone inexperienced and uninformed of how the systems of the game actually work.

    I mean, really, when you say telling an inexperienced person they are inexperienced is "not the way forward," with that blue name of yours, what do you think you're saying? What if I continue to do what I've been doing? Do I get points? That's how it's been for the past 2 years under the regime of carebear mod bullshit, and you certainly seem willing to continue enforcing this.

    If the developer had meant for all reactor construction to be identical stabilizers would deactivate rather than degrade at less than 100% efficiency.
    This is so wrong it hurts. Not forcing 100% build efficiency does not mean there is no 100% optimal way to build a reactor. This is what I am talking about with moderators who don't know anything about the balance policing people who DO KNOW how the balance works, for the benefit of others who also don't know anything.
    [doublepost=1512334400,1512334361][/doublepost]Oh, also, I would love if Jojomo would actually respond to me this time. You seem to have skipped me last time bud. :)
     
    Joined
    Jul 5, 2015
    Messages
    252
    Reaction score
    51
    You and other PvPers keep telling people how you know all about the "Balance", but at the same time, it seems like you're not willing to share what that is all about.

    When people who don't understand what you mean with the "Balance" start offering their knowledge of the game, and it does not agree with your views of the game, you suddenly go into all-out defensive mode and start throwing up words like "inexperienced and ignorant" et al (for the sake of moderation, I'll refrain from using the more passionate terms, that could be seen like a violation of the rules on the forum). Surely we can discuss matters in a more friendly manner than that.

    Please, I'll ask you nicely and clearly, can you explain this "Balance" that you keep on talking about? If it's as important as you say, and absolutely necessary for us to understand what it is, surely you can offer us some information on it, so we can better understand your viewpoint on the matter.
     

    Non

    Joined
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages
    296
    Reaction score
    157
    Please, I'll ask you nicely and clearly, can you explain this "Balance" that you keep on talking about? If it's as important as you say, and absolutely necessary for us to understand what it is, surely you can offer us some information on it, so we can better understand your viewpoint on the matter.
    Thats a broad question that can't be answered in a single response and is best had as a conversation. It should also be noted that most of the people who understand how SM balances have learned it themselves rather than being told explicitly and that my opinions are from my own experience and are not necessarily representative of the whole of the pvp community.

    I shall attempt to answer, please respond with whatever questions you may have.

    SM is roughly balanced at each skill level, like most games. Two noobs will have as hard a time killing each other as two pros. Noob armor and shields work against noob weapons. Pro armor and shields work against pro weapons. At any set skill level one shots will almost never occur. Power 2.0 makes instakills at low skill levels much easier because alpha weapons now have the exact same power usage as dps ones. At high skill levels concepts like disposable guns or mid combat removal of weapon blocks (neither are very viable now because of capacitor/generator ratio) and such may be used, allowing for even more alpha but retaining the same long term damage. In current build all the really powerful ships are still very ship shaped. New power meta ship shape (still dumbbell I believe, idk, correct me if I'm wrong) makes the distinction between hardcore pvp ships and those that are not more extreme, as not meta ships will not be able to compete, not being able to deal damage effectively. Missiles are one of the hardest weapons for new players to make effective, they tend not to use an appropriate number of outputs, size per output, or set up their effects very well. With the new shield system missiles may become by far the best weapon (or one of the worst depending on what happens with their system targeting) further widening the gap between high skill and low skill.
    I guess I would say the only part of this that properly breaks the spirit of current balance is the instakill thing, but the skill gap does not need to be widened. God, I love text bricks.

    Please clarify exactly what you want to know and I shall attempt to make a coherent response.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Lecic

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,115
    Reaction score
    1,229
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    You and other PvPers keep telling people how you know all about the "Balance", but at the same time, it seems like you're not willing to share what that is all about.

    When people who don't understand what you mean with the "Balance" start offering their knowledge of the game, and it does not agree with your views of the game, you suddenly go into all-out defensive mode and start throwing up words like "inexperienced and ignorant" et al (for the sake of moderation, I'll refrain from using the more passionate terms, that could be seen like a violation of the rules on the forum). Surely we can discuss matters in a more friendly manner than that.

    Please, I'll ask you nicely and clearly, can you explain this "Balance" that you keep on talking about? If it's as important as you say, and absolutely necessary for us to understand what it is, surely you can offer us some information on it, so we can better understand your viewpoint on the matter.
    "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.

    In current build all the really powerful ships are still very ship shaped. New power meta ship shape (still dumbbell I believe, idk, correct me if I'm wrong)
    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. This continues to be true into power 2.0. Dumbbells are more effective than a normal ship shape if you want to still be a continuous vessel, but they are not the peak of the meta.