Make Chamber Size A Set Percentage (Remove Levels)

[JinM]

The reactor level chamber size jumps are really bad imo. So a change would be nice.

At least the jump from 999 to 1999 really strange. At first its reactor-chamber ratio 4:1 (999/225), then its 8:1 (1999/250). This is double.

 

[Vyor]

Ya... there are a lot of issues with how it's done now.

 

[MrGrey1]

The reactor level chamber size jumps are really bad imo. So a change would be nice.

At least the jump from 999 to 1999 really strange. At first its reactor-chamber ratio 4:1 (999/225), then its 8:1 (1999/250). This is double.

Damn! The numbers changed and I hadn't noticed... when did that happen?



Same 19, 199, 1999, 19999 etc sweet spot though the chamber block count has dropped, looks like it's halved compared to my old chart. Guess I should go and check my early v2 designs... moving goal posts. /grumble/sigh

 

[MacThule]

Damn! The numbers changed and I hadn't noticed... when did that happen?

View attachment 50117

Same 19, 199, 1999, 19999 etc sweet spot though the chamber block count has dropped, looks like it's halved compared to my old chart. Guess I should go and check my early v2 designs... moving goal posts. /grumble/sigh

Yeah, they totally balanced the numbers and threw us a loop.

 

[Valck]

Damn! The numbers changed and I hadn't noticed... when did that happen?

• Reactor
  • Chamber blocks needed per reactor block: 0.5 → 0.25

 

[Nebulon-B_Frigate_FTW]

I find wanting (20*10^N)-1 reactor blocks really counterintuitive as well as kind of hard to build for, like many aspects of Power 2.0.

 

[MrGrey1]

Discounting <19 reactors the ratio is between 4 and 8. So say you want to be in the top 50% of that range between 6 and 8. That leaves you with a choice of reactors between 150:199, 1500:1999, 15000:19999 etc...
49/(199-19)=27.2%
499/( 1999-199)=27.7%
4999/(19999-1999)=27.7%

So almost three quarters of the reactor size range is less then fifty percent reactor to chamber efficient. As ship size is correlated with reactor size that leads to the conclusion that 75% of possible ship sizes will have less then average reactor:chamber efficiency..?

 

[JinM]

They just should change the increments in a way, that it allways stays between 7 and 8 at more breaking points.

This means for example 399 blocks need 50, not 75.

So you have 199 blocks with 25. And then 399 blocks at next breaking point with 50 - voila you stayed at an important reactor size with a reasonable chamber block count.

799 reactor blocks then should need 100 chambers. 999 should need 125.

1199-150
1399-175
1599-200
1799-225
1999-250

quickmaths

But on the other hand I have to ask: maybe its intended so we have actual steps in reactor sizes? That way there is a unified reactor size when it comes to pvp in a certain size class?

 

[jayman38]

Just to verify the expected math:
chamber_block_minimum = (floor(reactor_block_count/200)+1) * 25;

This yields a minimum of 25 blocks per chamber (kinda hefty if you want a chamber in a light craft), with 250 blocks for a reactor that falls between 1800 and 1999 blocks.

Personally, to accommodate builders of smaller ships (raises hand), I'd recommend a more granular algorithm.
chamber_block_minimum = (floor(reactor_block_count/40)+1) * 5;

This yields a minimum of 5 blocks per chamber (still kinda hefty for a light craft, but more possible), with 250 blocks of chamber for a reactor that falls between 1960 and 1999 blocks.

If you wanted to be supremely granular, you could grow a chamber block requirement one block at a time.
chamber_block_minimum = (floor(reactor_block_count/8) + 1);

This yields a minimum of 1 block per chamber for every 8 blocks of reactor (7, 15, 23, 31, etc....), up to 250 blocks of chamber for a reactor between 1992 and 1999 blocks.

 

[alterintel]

I've taken full advantage of this. Reducing my Reactor down to 1999 on my ship, I was able to reduce the size of my Chambers by half :D
Not sure if that's intended, but having my reactor a tiny bit smaller only seems to affect jump drive charging. Maybe that means my weapons are under powered?

 

[MrGrey1]

I've taken full advantage of this. Reducing my Reactor down to 1999 on my ship, I was able to reduce the size of my Chambers by half :D
Not sure if that's intended, but having my reactor a tiny bit smaller only seems to affect jump drive charging. Maybe that means my weapons are under powered?

Yah it makes quite a difference considering how heavy the chamber blocks are. I haven't really had an issue with the block count as such, it's the extra mass that's the issue. Perhaps this could be mitigated a little by reducing their mass?

 

[alterintel]

Yah it makes quite a difference considering how heavy the chamber blocks are. I haven't really had an issue with the block count as such, it's the extra mass that's the issue. Perhaps this could be mitigated a little by reducing their mass?

I agree completely. However, Chamber blocks being so heave helps to mitigate how many Chambers your ship can have. I build a ship with 20 Chambers that can be switched on and off.