HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[kikaha]

Single layer covering the whole body of the ship instead of only a couple of plates protecting critical systems and buried at least 20-30 layers under shield blocks, interiors or girders. Or all of the above.

Well i'm insane then. All my bigger than corvette fighting ships are full advanced armor.

 

[Jojomo]

I'll save you the need to do it.
As you can see the shorter "ship" is 1800 tons heavier. And that's assuming absolutely insane use of advanced armor.

That's because you haven't used the best stabiliser efficiency for the geometry and armour level you used. You should have used about 85-90%

If you post your reactor dimensions I'll give a more accurate value.

For a reactor of 60*30*15=27000, using a single layer of AA (crystal in images below), lightest stabiliser efficiency will be about 75%:

100% stab effic ship on left 49.1 k mass <-----> 75% on right 47.3 k mass
Both produce 2.7 mil e/s



[doublepost=1512181901,1512181192][/doublepost]

So you solve the issue of not having enough power generated to power all systems that would be present in a volume by.... decreasing the available volume.

No, I'm not proposing a solution.
I'm saying you're able to reduce volume because you have unused volume inside the hull.
And your reward is more power for the same mass.

Your solution to this "problem" of having unused volume is to increase the reactor size while maintaining the same stabiliser effciency, and therefore also increase the volume! :D

That is a terrible idea, simply because it creates a larger area where a hostile can inflict Reactor HP damage, making your ship more vulnerable.

The better solution is to expand the size of your reactor to produce more power while keeping 100% efficiency, because they are 100% efficient then you require less blocks placed to achieve necessary power, which decreases the area where hostiles can deal RHP damage.

That won't reduce your unused volume, it'll increase it.

The point is very simple: using stabiliser effciency below 100% (except in some extreme cases) allows more power for the same mass.

I'll continue to explain and demonstrate this mechanic in this thread.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

i think i see what they are getting at, but realistically the way ships are generally going to be built in the new power system build is going to be stabalisers placed last rather than anything else.

build reactor, build systems and abilities one by one, then once thats all done build stabalisers and hull.

 

[Kelpaz]

I still think the stabilizer distance is too extreme, I made a test ship based on a moderate reactor size and then simply putting stabilizers in the green zone and got this result:

Now I am aware of the power scaling differently and systems requiring less power but 389 meters for just a simple reactor?
Looks like the future of designs are extremely long ships or warbirds with very wide wingspans.

Didn't the dev notes for the new systems say something about not forcing design choices, well this is anything but forcing me to design in a certain way or else I won't have any chamber benefits because the space will be taken up by stabilizers.

 

[Zoolimar]

That's because you haven't used the best stabiliser efficiency for the geometry and armour level you used. You should have used about 85-90%

Try reactor stabiliser pair that is thinner and you'll see your gains shrink. Having a reactor wide on a forward cross-section so that opponents could shoot it better seems like not that good of an idea. If you use single layer reactor / stabiliser plates they'll need even more armor to cover the volume, only it won't be a good design.

If you post your reactor dimensions I'll give a more accurate value.

29x29x29.

I don't see a reason to make it wider than a cube and add more armor to cover that area. Though I probably could try making it somewhat thinner if the ship is fast enough and I could get away with just frontal armor plate on the reactor.

Your solution to this "problem" of having unused volume is to increase the reactor size while maintaining the same stabiliser effciency, and therefore also increase the volume!

You can't wound volume. Empty space doesn't hurt or weights anything. I could have 2/3 of my ship be empty space and not suffer in any way for it. Because I don't need to armor it.

 

[Jojomo]

Try reactor stabiliser pair that is thinner and you'll see your gains shrink. Having a reactor wide on a forward cross-section so that opponents could shoot it better seems like not that good of an idea. If you use single layer reactor / stabiliser plates they'll need even more armor to cover the volume, only it won't be a good design.

29x29x29.

I don't see a reason to make it wider than a cube and add more armor to cover that area. Though I probably could try making it somewhat thinner if the ship is fast enough and I could get away with just frontal armor plate on the reactor.

Yep, that's pressure towards smaller cross sections. There's also pressure the other way, for example enclosing volume without more hull than you need, and fitting all the fwd facing weapons you want.

Anyway, that isn't anything specific to systems 2.0, it's a choice we've always had to make.
Do you have any existing high performance designs with aspect ratios like 31*31*630?

29^3 doesn't match the reactor count in your pics(25230), and I don't have SM in front of me, but looks like 85% will be the approximate target.

You can't wound volume. Empty space doesn't hurt or weights anything. I could have 2/3 of my ship be empty space and not suffer in any way for it. Because I don't need to armor it.

No disagreement here.
[doublepost=1512205763,1512205211][/doublepost]

I still think the stabilizer distance is too extreme, I made a test ship based on a moderate reactor size and then simply putting stabilizers in the green zone and got this result:

Now I am aware of the power scaling differently and systems requiring less power but 389 meters for just a simple reactor?
Looks like the future of designs are extremely long ships or warbirds with very wide wingspans.

Didn't the dev notes for the new systems say something about not forcing design choices, well this is anything but forcing me to design in a certain way or else I won't have any chamber benefits because the space will be taken up by stabilizers.

Sounds like you might have posted in the thread without reading it first.

 

[Zoolimar]

29^3 doesn't match the reactor count in your pics, and I don't have SM in front of me, but looks like 85% will be the approximate target.

Oh yeah, checked, I actually misclicked and it is 29x29x30.

There's also pressure the other way, for example enclosing volume without more hull than you need, and fitting all the fwd facing weapons you want.

Why do I need to enclose it? Why do I need to put forward facing weapons up front when they would work as well if I put them behind stabilisers ?

 

[Jojomo]

Oh yeah, checked, I actually misclicked and it is 29x29x30.


Why do I need to enclose it? Why do I need to put forward facing weapons up front when they would work as well if I put them behind stabilisers ?

Those questions aren't my problem.
I have my point, and I've been very clear about in what circumstances it holds.
You said it didn't hold for reactors over 15k, which was incorrect.
What you do with it is up to you.

 

[Kelpaz]

Sounds like you might have posted in the thread without reading it first.

I posted on this thread because it's relevant to the discussion of power 2.0 and ship building under the new system.

 

[Zoolimar]

I have my point, and I've been very clear about in what circumstances it holds.

Yes, if you create a ship in very specific way, while also wasting a lot of armor blocks to cover parts of the ship that don't need to be covered.

 

[Jojomo]

Yes, if you create a ship in very specific way, while also wasting a lot of armor blocks to cover parts of the ship that don't need to be covered.

I'd say enclosing ships in at least hull is pretty typical, and aspect ratios of 20:1 aren't, so it's likely to be widely applicable.

 

[Zoolimar]

I think enclosing ships in at least hull is pretty typical, and aspect ratios of 20:1 aren't, so it's likely to be widely applicable.

And hull can save mass only on pretty small reactors. As you have demonstrated in your first post with pictures.

 

[Jojomo]

And hull can save mass only on pretty small reactors. As you have demonstrated in your first post with pictures.

That's incorrect also. It depends on the geometry.

Certainly the effect is smaller with only a single layer of hull.
And larger reactors need a relatively large cross section, but even the 27k reactor I've just been discussing can save mass with just a single layer of hull if it has a large cross section.

And as a ship becomes larger, the percentage of its total mass contributed by its hull becomes smaller (for a constant hull thickness).
I.e. the larger a ship is the easier it is to give it a thicker/tougher hull.
So even just based on that we can reasonably make the assumption that large ships are less likely to use only a single layer of hull than smaller ships are.

 

[GDPR 302420]

No, I'm not proposing a solution.
I'm saying you're able to reduce volume because you have unused volume inside the hull.

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.

Your solution to this "problem" of having unused volume is to increase the reactor size while maintaining the same stabiliser effciency, and therefore also increase the volume! :D

Better to have empty space then a more vulnerable ship.

hat won't reduce your unused volume, it'll increase it.

The point is very simple: using stabiliser effciency below 100% (except in some extreme cases) allows more power for the same mass.

I'll continue to explain and demonstrate this mechanic in this thread.

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.

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.

Jojomo, I strongly encourage you to gain an understanding of basic game mechanics and power before you continue to spread misinformation to other players.
[doublepost=1512218563,1512217382][/doublepost]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.

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"

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.
• 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.
• 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.

Allow me to explain how you should build your reactors.

1. 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)
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

If you have any questions about anything I have explained here, feel free to jump onto my Mentor Q/A thread, where I as a StarMadeDock community mentor assist people with system building as well as PvP associated knoweldge. RedThread™ - Newbies get PvP questions answered here

 

[NeonSturm]

This is going to be my next ship:
The frontmost bird carries stabilizers, the rearmost carries reactors, 2 of the middle ARE turrets and the middle is a ship with decorative interior and a few show-case-systems.
Shields are in the power-birds.

1

 

[nulitor]

Really good design.
Add in some chaff birds made of capsules too.
(and for having a V formation maybe)

 

[FlyingDebris]

"I'm going to disregard your example that proves me wrong because it doesn't fit my highly specific, arbitrary rules that I designed to make myself look right"

 

[Jojomo]

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.

 

[Calhoun]

I can't be bothered reading through this entire thread, so here's your options in new power working with a prebuilt hull:

Use a larger reactor with less efficient stabilisers. This has the advantage of typically a bit more power, but comes at the cost of system space and squishy-ness. More power blocks in total = more damage to them. Add to it the fact that you have less total systems (thrust, weapons, shields) and this isn't the best option, unless you're inexperienced and aren't sure what the final systems of your ship will be.

Use a smaller reactor with 100% stabilisers. This has the advantage of using less blocks, which allows for more systems, at the cost of less power. Less power blocks also has a small damage mitigation by there being less blocks to actually hit (simple probability). This is easily the best option if you can calculate or closely estimate the final stats of the ship.

 

[GDPR 302420]

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.

Plenty of people are claiming otherwise, you are just ignoring them

I think Calhoun hit the nail on the head with how your building method stacks up against others.

Use a larger reactor with less efficient stabilisers. This has the advantage of typically a bit more power, but comes at the cost of system space and squishy-ness. More power blocks in total = more damage to them. Add to it the fact that you have less total systems (thrust, weapons, shields) and this isn't the best option, unless you're inexperienced and aren't sure what the final systems of your ship will be.

Use a smaller reactor with 100% stabilisers. This has the advantage of using less blocks, which allows for more systems, at the cost of less power. Less power blocks also has a small damage mitigation by there being less blocks to actually hit (simple probability). This is easily the best option if you can calculate or closely estimate the final stats of the ship.