Exactly why I want a build to try that significantly reduces the distance requirement, or eliminates it in favor of conduit connections.
As I keep showing there's no need to eliminate the distance requirements. They make design more interesting, and despite the complaining of a few people, don't stop you building the ship you want (unless you want it all of powerful AND light AND small, in which case you have unreasonable requirements and I'm unsympathetic)
If you eliminate distance and required conduits instead, people would build reactors and stabilisers up against each other and use either 0 or 1 conduit block.
I'd like to see conduits required in addition to the stabiliser separation, to hurt spaghetti ships.
[doublepost=1510019360,1510018691][/doublepost]
People who are looking for maximum performance would eliminate that number with a better design. Because my ship is a square shape, I am stuck with an inferior shape. This wasn't an issue with the old system.
Yes it was, it's just that the inferior shape in power 1.0 was a stick, while the superior shape was a cube.
(From the point of view of the ship's power system)
If my ship was shaped like a twizzler I wouldn't need to make that compromise.
Design (in the real world) is literally just a string of compromises. The devs have done a great job making the same true in SM.
The main point that I am trying to make is one that has been made a million times. We are working with a system that universally rewards one type of reactor design. You can get more power by putting down more stabilizers, but that's not my problem. I want an efficient powerful ship. Not one that feels like a giant compromise.
And you can have an efficient powerful ship. The problem is you want a ship that has the same shape, size, power, and abilities as one you made under a different mechanic.
Not reasonable.
I fail to see how that is the case. Never mind decision space, what decision do I need to make?
Where does the reactor go. How large is the reactor. What separation do you want from the stabilisers. How many stabiliser groups will there be. How large will each stabiliser group be. Where will the stabiliser groups be placed.
In power 1.0 you chose size, shape, and location of the reactor (although shape and location were kind of an intertwined single decision, assuming you used a three axis reactor roughly the same dimensions you your ship, which was the case 99% of the time).
It did also allow decisions about multiple reactors docked together which are now gone, and I do miss....
I had no problem with the earlier builds. It seems like every time I download a new build the distance increases and my power output decreases. If that's the case then I think quite literally we are going in the wrong direction.
You're exaggerating. It's increased once.
[doublepost=1510020915][/doublepost]
No matter what role my ship has, it will perform it better with a bigger more powerful reactor. We're going to end up with a bunch of ships that all have different roles but look the same.
I think we all know perfectly well that we aren't going to end up with ships that look the same, no matter what mechanics were used.
The best ship in every role will literally look the same as another ship in another role.
That's only as true as it is for power 1.0.
I still don't see what has to be well thought out either. The system has already decided for my where my reactor components should be.
No it hasn't. I recently posted two possibilities for your ship, and if I was in front of SM I'd post a third: four stabiliser groups in the corners of your square hull around a central reactor.
Players (like yourself) have other goals in mind beyond minimising the number of stabiliser blocks they use.
My fixed power output makes it mathematically very easy to plan out weapons and other systems. The most I have to think about is what chambers I want to use, but that has nothing to do with placing the actual blocks. I don't want to be spending a majority of my theory crafting time specing things like an RPG. Totally different from what actually made this game interesting to me.
You still don't have the "best" power system layout that you could for your predefined hull, so I don't think you're supporting your argument that you don't have to think about it.
