New Power and viable shapes

[beeez]

With 2 reactors you end up with 2 pre-configured "ship modes", and can switch reactors with a click of a button. In theory you could have one reactor with more conduits and more chambers, but then you'll spend ten minutes manually enabling/disabling/reconfiguring chambers instead of just clicking one button.

You mean since each reactor has a limit to the number of chamber bonuses you receive, you bypass this by alternating reactors? That's an interesting feature of the new system that i hadn't thought about.

It's incredibly stupid. You'd need a lot less stabilisers if the reactor was in one corner and the stabilisers were in the opposite corner (or, if reactor and stabiliser/s were further apart); which translates to "more power for same mass" or "less mass for same power" or "more efficient".

Keep in mind it was a station, so mass (i.e. thrust) is not a limiting factor.

Not that much more unwieldy than the pyramid with the same power generation and weights much less.

Is maneuverability no longer impacted by dimensions? I'm coming back from a long break i took from SM, but iirc more compact designs used to have better turning.

 

[Zoolimar]

Is maneuverability no longer impacted by dimensions? I'm coming back from a long break i took from SM, but iirc more compact designs used to have better turning.

The difference is not big enough due to non-linear scaling of the distance. Unless you go like 5% effectiveness. Which would mean 20 times the stabiliser mass.

 

[The Judge]

Qweesdy i'm unable to tell from your wording whether you were placing stabilizers at x% efficiency or if you were adjusting reactor size until your stabilization was at x%.

There is a huge difference.

Reactor blocks give a certain amount of potential energy. You reach that potential at 100% stabilization. Maybe there are other side effects to low stabilization other than reduced power output? I dunno yet, and i'm not sure it's been tested out fully by the community because of how new it is. If you continue adding reactor blocks (or removing stabilizer blocks) and can see your stabilization reducing, you will also see your power regen reducing.

In other words, if your reactor is exactly 100% stable and you add more reactor blocks, you will actually get less power out of your reactor. Not sure if this is what you're experiencing, but it sounds like it may be, as you seemed to be getting less and less as you added to the reactor.

I also haven't heard anything about multiple reactors giving extra chamber options. Is it any different with two reactors than it would be if you just laid separate conduit lines to more chambers?

Not so. Here's an octahedral station i made in creative, just messing around on the dev builds over the last few months. Reactor in the middle and stabilizers in chunks as far away from the reactor as i could manage. I believe it's 200k power and about 100m in each direction out from the center (200m across on the long dimensions).

Is it strange that i have six chunks of stabilizers, each about the size of my reactor? Sure is, but it takes more stabilizers if you're not going to put them all at 100% efficiency 15km away

I was talking about placing your reactors x meters away to have 100% efficiency, which results in ugly sticks and dumbells.

Alright, consider this.
Have the same volume, but instead have a long tube with stabilizers at one end and reactors at the other. You'll squeeze out far more power for the same amount of resources.

PvP players will want to be as efficient as possible, and I don't like the idea of our design choices being restricted by unneeded complications that just make the game terrible for everybody.

 

[NTIMESc]

Note that I'm looking at this from a very different perspective than most people. I have a hull with a certain shape and volume, and my goal is to fill that volume in whatever way is the most useful. This is what I'm struggling with - avoiding wasted space.

Filling the entire hull volume was my perspective with the old system. With the old system it made sense to keep adding power and shields until the volume was filled to maximum density. The new system doesn't work that way. System stuffing has little benefit. Focusing on the "wasted" space is not productive in the new system. Just think of the wasted space as special invisible blocks that can't be hit.

From my perspective, more damage per block just makes it harder to fill the massive gaping cavity of pointless idiocy, and does nothing to solve the "power consumption is too high" problem that prevents everything from being used to fill that massive gaping cavity.

Instead of needing to fill the empty space with more systems than the reactor can handle, just assume the space is a placeholder, the purpose for which will be determined in a future update.

 

[Qweesdy]

I was talking about placing your reactors x meters away to have 100% efficiency, which results in ugly sticks and dumbells.

Alright, consider this.
Have the same volume, but instead have a long tube with stabilizers at one end and reactors at the other. You'll squeeze out far more power for the same amount of resources.

I hate wasted space - it looks unprofessional (like the ship builder was lazy and didn't bother finishing the ship), and I've designed my ship to be as large as my video card can handle (empty spaces make rendering slower which means I'd have to reduce the size of the ship to compensate).

PvP players will want to be as efficient as possible, and I don't like the idea of our design choices being restricted by unneeded complications that just make the game terrible for everybody.

For pure PvP, the most sane choice seems to be "disconnected balls" - e.g. one blob containing reactors and thrusters (and some shields) and another separate blob containing stabilisers and weapons (and some more shields), with nothing connecting the blobs. "Tube shaped" would be second choice.

Of course with the way the chambers work you probably want a pair of ships - a nice pink tube shaped carrier (to get all the FTL bonuses) with a second shiny red "disconnected balls" ship (with all the defensive bonuses) docked on the back.

 

[RB101]

I can’t believe players haven’t realised that what qualifies as “decent power” has change based on weapon reload functionality.

 

[Skwidz]

I think I've only seen reactor chambers mentioned once (or twice) in this thread particularly power reactor chambers. Can't those be used to make power usage more efficient so smaller reactors could be used and make the shape of the ship less awkward?

 

[NeonSturm]

If you compare reactors to stabilizers it's obvious stabilizers take equal space at least.

But with chambers, reactors take more space than stabilizers

 

[Zoolimar]

I can’t believe players haven’t realised that what qualifies as “decent power” has change based on weapon reload functionality.

There is no "decent power". There is only "MORE DAKKA!!!". As long as you can cram more things in your ship that could be effectively used - you should do it. So if you build a reactor of 1000 blocks in size your systems should use almost all of its energy plus some small amount could be left for force major circumstances, damage or lag of the server. If you have 2000 blocks ? Same thing. 1'000'000 blocks? Yes, you would still use them all up.

Drives do somewhat limit it from getting completely out of hand due to diminishing returns on thrust but in most cases the server limit or the limit of your computer would determine the maximum size of the ship and reactor.

 

[Cluwne]

Can't those be used to make power usage more efficient so smaller reactors could be used and make the shape of the ship less awkward?

Reactor capacity is far too precious to "waste" it on power regen. You can just add more blocks for that. You can't increase capacity the same way.

 

[RB101]

There is no "decent power". There is only "MORE DAKKA!!!". As long as you can cram more things in your ship that could be effectively used - you should do it. So if you build a reactor of 1000 blocks in size your systems should use almost all of its energy plus some small amount could be left for force major circumstances, damage or lag of the server. If you have 2000 blocks ? Same thing. 1'000'000 blocks? Yes, you would still use them all up.

Drives do somewhat limit it from getting completely out of hand due to diminishing returns on thrust but in most cases the server limit or the limit of your computer would determine the maximum size of the ship and reactor.

The problem for now is that more reactor blocks = further distance for stabilisers.

You can no longer have a 100% system titan. And that’s good. It somewhat levels the playing field in terms of combat making lone wolfing in a titan dangerous. I wish people would stfu and get on with playing the game. If you don’t like it, find a server with configs you like or change your single player settings (it isn’t hard), just stop whining at devs. The space the stabilisers create kay be put to use for things such as survival elements or crew quarters in the future, see the potential it has not what you don’t like because you can’t be OP anymore.

 

[Zoolimar]

You can no longer have a 100% system titan. And that’s good. It somewhat levels the playing field in terms of combat making lone wolfing in a titan dangerous. I wish people would stfu and get on with playing the game.

And how does the fact that it is made mostly of empty space change that said titan, if done right, still could trample over most ships ?

The space the stabilisers create kay be put to use for things such as survival elements or crew quarters in the future, see the potential it has not what you don’t like because you can’t be OP anymore.

The space the stabilizers create is irrelevant for the ship. Because you can't damage empty space. A properly built combat ship will continue to kill everyone else. Only now it would not look like spaghetti but like a flock of disconnected blobs and turrets or a dumbbell.

The interiors and other things put into that empty space between reactors and stabilizers are just dead weight. If you at least put them around your systems they could work as armor.

 

[MacThule]

And how does the fact that it is made mostly of empty space change that said titan, if done right, still could trample over most ships ?


The space the stabilizers create is irrelevant for the ship. Because you can't damage empty space. A properly built combat ship will continue to kill everyone else. Only now it would not look like spaghetti but like a flock of disconnected blobs and turrets or a dumbbell.

The interiors and other things put into that empty space between reactors and stabilizers are just dead weight. If you at least put them around your systems they could work as armor.

Exchange stabilizers for a system of bounding filled interior space to boost the reactor function, with better boosting effects for more decorative blocks placed within the defined region (up to a point, of course; maybe 40% fill or something).

Then it's impossible to build good combat ships without interior; interior becomes the system instead of competing with it. Lazy builders could just spam slabs of decorative crap into the compartments and get on with it, designers could make it beautiful. Either way though, it would not be invincible empty space, and both would become near equally subject to damage.

 

[Zoolimar]

The more you add to your ship the less it will look like a dumbbell or stick. Just add something like a backup reactor, chambers, extra thrusters, decor, shields, weaker "primary" weapons, powerful "secondary" weapons, turrets that don't bleed too much energy, useless rooms, etc. At least with this update ships can be made functional and look good often easier than before.

So you suggest to tank the effectiveness of a combat ship with useless features and consider it a good approach to building one? You literally suggest to take an effective ship and transform it into a mess of unneeded blocks, raising its cost and lowering its defences by cutting into speed and energy generation needed for main weapons.

 

[Skwidz]

So you suggest to tank the effectiveness of a combat ship with useless features and consider it a good approach to building one? You literally suggest to take an effective ship and transform it into a mess of unneeded blocks, raising its cost and lowering its defences by cutting into speed and energy generation needed for main weapons.

Or just don't.

 

[MacThule]

Or just don't.

I understand where you were coming from.

Many players though are competing in extremely intense, no-holds-barred PvP warfare. Any unecessary block puts them at a disadvantage against a ship perfectly streamlined and optimized for maximum performance and minimum cost and overhead. This is why the conversation tends to revolve around how to make interiors necessary without turning them into a huge drag of grind and red tape and nonsensical dynamics.

It absolutely is possible to make your ship look better by filling it out. It is fun, and challenging in its own right to design a cool ship that works well. It won't hold up favorably against space-raptors though; they are the product of long evolution.

 

[GnomeKing]

"The more you add to your ship the less it will look like a dumbbell or stick. Just add something like a backup reactor ... At least with this update ships can be made functional and look good often easier than before"

a decorated dumb-bell – great :/

 

[Skwidz]

I did say "or just don't".

 

[Dire Venom]

Seems relevant, so ill leave this here.

No matter what they do, interiors are only derimental with the new system. Making a stick is far better for your ship than dead-weight interiors, even decoration blocks no longer contribute anything to your ship expect weight :/

 

[Kelpaz]

Seems relevant, so ill leave this here.

No matter what they do, interiors are only derimental with the new system. Making a stick is far better for your ship than dead-weight interiors, even decoration blocks no longer contribute anything to your ship expect weight :/