HowTo build a ship in the new dev build

[NeonSturm]

this is classic PVE vs PVP conflict.

I guess you mean PvP vs RP (role play)

 

[Chances_Ghost]

Lowering SE allows better power/mass ratios.

power production, but not overall ship strength to mass ratio. a ships weight and power generation are not equal to its strength as a ship. its mass is irelevent to this

why on earth are you so obsessed with how much a ship weighs? its meaningless.

 

[Jojomo]

power production, but not overall ship strength to mass ratio. a ships weight and power generation are not equal to its strength as a ship. its mass is irelevent to this

why on earth are you so obsessed with how much a ship weighs? its meaningless.

If mass was meaningless we'd all just make ships as massive as we possibly could.

That isn't what happens though.

Mass is typically the most common single variable metric used to compare ships, which makes power/mass ratio something to care about.

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.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

If mass was meaningless we'd all just make ships as massive as we possibly could.

That isn't what happens though.

Mass is typically the most common single variable metric used to compare ships, which makes power/mass ratio something to care about.

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 tell a lot of people here have strong feelings about that.

stop confusing ship e/s with a ships overall power aka its strength and ability to perform its duities, you build ships like that they will be lighter and in a lower mass class, but still underperform against the ships in that lower mass class becuase its built super inneffeciantly to save mass.

and have you played starmade in the last 5 years? we DO make ships as massive as we possably can. and when we compair ships of a similar mass the last thing we give a crap about is how much energy they generate but rather how much damage they can do and how survivable they are.

NOBODY cares about shaving 5k mass off their ship if it means they lose survivability (aka room to cram more shields or weapons into it) and in cases we do care, we get rid of hull all together as its 1000% more effective at shedding mass

you have wasted everyones time including your own

 

[Jojomo]

stop confusing ship e/s with a ships overall power aka its strength and ability to perform its duities, you build ships like that they will be lighter and in a lower mass class, but still underperform against the ships in that lower mass class becuase its built super inneffeciantly to save mass.

I suggest you discuss that with RedAlert. He's said a couple of times in this thread that the most critical aspect of a ship is how many weapons/shields/systems it can run (and I agree with him).

and have you played starmade in the last 5 years? we DO make ships as massive as we possably can. and when we compair ships of a similar mass the last thing we give a crap about is how much energy they generate but rather how much damage they can do and how survivable they are.

What's the average mass of all your designs?
There are a LOT of players designing ships that are not titans.

NOBODY cares about shaving 5k mass off their ship if it means they lose survivability (aka room to cram more shields or weapons into it) and in cases we do care, we get rid of hull all together as its 1000% more effective at shedding mass

Nothing to get upset about here then.

 

[GDPR 302420]

There isn't though. As far as I can tell that only exists in the minds of some who want it to be that.
I'm not PvE, I'm not RP. I have no interest in either of those.

Actions speak louder then words.

 

[Jojomo]

Actions speak louder then words.

Cool. Post a ship that uses 100% SE then, within the guidelines of my page 1 post, and I'll modify it to have more power for the same mass.

 

[GDPR 302420]

Cool. Post a ship that uses 100% SE then, within the guideline of my page 1 post, and I'll modify it to have more power for the same mass.

See my previous response to this.

 

[Zoolimar]

Cool. Post a ship that uses 100% SE then, within the guidelines of my page 1 post, and I'll modify it to have more power for the same mass.

You mean the one that describes severely suboptimal ship design due to how Starmade systems work ?

 

[Chances_Ghost]

I suggest you discuss that with RedAlert. He's said a couple of times in this thread that the most critical aspect of a ship is how many weapons/shields/systems it can run (and I agree with him).

and the way you suggest to build ships is to use more reactor/stabaliser blocks to achieve the exact same performance, i get what your doing, your trying to remove as much empty space as you possably can, i understand perfectly. but ultimatly the meta is moving away from ultra compact/dense towards ultra spread out with tons of empty space and for good reason.

 

[Jojomo]

See my previous response to this.

This response:

"You have failed to see the entire point of why your building method is flawed, your suggestion that you should be adding more blocks then nessicary is wasted space and reduces efficiency.
Your design of adding unessicary reactor component blocks is wasted space that could be used for other systems.
It creates more power but at the cost of filling up your space with unessicary reactor blocks that takes away space for systems that use that power and thus ruins the entire point of creating that extra power in the first place."

I'll assume it's a risk you aren't willing to take.
[doublepost=1512294352,1512294284][/doublepost]

and the way you suggest to build ships is to use more reactor/stabaliser blocks to achieve the exact same performance, i get what your doing, your trying to remove as much empty space as you possably can, i understand perfectly. but ultimatly the meta is moving away from ultra compact/dense towards ultra spread out with tons of empty space and for good reason.

I don't care about empty space at all (as I've said earlier in this thread). I do care about power/mass ratio.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

I don't care about empty space at all (as I've said earlier in this thread). I do care about power/mass ratio.

that there is the main problem, you dictate your entire building stragegy on a completly useless compairson of e/s to mass ratio

 

[GDPR 302420]

I'll assume it's a risk you aren't willing to take.

I am already doing a good job of telling others why your idea of "efficiency" is flawed without feeding you tech demos I built.

I don't think saying "you missed the entire point" is the way to respond anymore, I think that considering your responses, the better thing to say is "You are avoiding the entire point, your design method is flawed for reasons that have nothing to do with generating more power with less mass"

I think you would benefit significantly from reading the response you quoted and taking it into consideration, while you are at it go back to the dev build you claim to be an expert in (which I highly doubt you even know what you are talking about considering what you have said on this thread) and come to terms with why your method of building is flawed.

 

[Jojomo]

that there is the main problem, you dictate your entire building stragegy on a completly useless compairson of e/s to mass ratio

Anyone who doesn't care about power/mass ratio is completely free to ignore my posts. I'll be perfectly content, I promise.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

Anyone who doesn't care about power/mass ratio is completely free to ignore my posts. I'll be perfectly content, I promise.

so everyone?

i think i did it guys, threads over

 

[GDPR 302420]

that there is the main problem, you dictate your entire building stragegy on a completly useless compairson of e/s to mass ratio

Exactly.

The power a ship generates for its mass is meaningless if your ship has less space for other systems.

Anyone who doesn't care about power/mass ratio is completely free to ignore my posts.

Yeah no, as a community mentor it is my obligation to give knoweldge to newer players to help others who may not know what to do. When someone such as yourself comes onto this thread and spreads misinformation, then newer players are given knoweldge that hinders them.

As a mentor, I cannot allow this to happen, which is why I will call out any and all misinformation, because if I didnt then a newer player make take your advice believing it is good advice and end up being hindered because the advice given screwed them over.

 

[Jojomo]

I am already doing a good job of telling others why your idea of "efficiency" is flawed without feeding you tech demos I built.

I don't think saying "you missed the entire point" is the way to respond anymore, I think that considering your responses, the better thing to say is "You are avoiding the entire point, your design method is flawed for reasons that have nothing to do with generating more power with less mass"

I think you would benefit significantly from reading the response you quoted and taking it into consideration, while you are at it go back to the dev build you claim to be an expert in (which I highly doubt you even know what you are talking about considering what you have said on this thread) and come to terms with why your method of building is flawed.

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.
It is: for typical designs (unhulled, or ulttra-thin rods, etc, have their own mechanics) a lower stabiliser efficiency means a higher power/mass ratio. That's it.

 

[The_Owl]

Anyone can win if they impose a set of pointless, arbitry requirements that are flawed themselves.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

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

 

[Jojomo]

Exactly.

The power a ship generates for its mass is meaningless if your ship has less space for other systems.

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

Yeah no, as a community mentor it is my obligation to give knoweldge to newer players to help others who may not know what to do. When someone such as yourself comes onto this thread and spreads misinformation, then newer players are given knoweldge that hinders them.

As a mentor, I cannot allow this to happen, which is why I will call out any and all misinformation, because if I didnt then a newer player make take your advice believing it is good advice and end up being hindered because the advice given screwed them over.

Do your "duty", and demonstrate then: show a ship with 100% SE, that fits within the description I say my point applies to, that I can't improve the power/mass ratio of.