New Power System, Did we get Nerfed?

[Spartan-228]

So I have been looking t the new power system And I am not sure how to feel about it. My favorite ship designs were in the 200 meter to 300 meter length category, and it was relatively easy to fit 2 million e/s on them. Now this worked out perfect as they were the most efficient ships in my fleet. They had respectable weapons, had good shields, nice speed, and could usually jam indefinitely or for at lest a few minutes.

Now I find it is literally impossible to get 2 million e/s on a ship that is in the 200 to 300 meter length rang because the reactor is bigger than the bloody ship. I can only imagine how many titans have been broken by this.

 

[NeonSturm]

Did you check the power consumption and power of systems (especially thrusters) too?
Salvagers got buffed.

And if enemy ships can't fit as much weapons, you also don't need to fit as much shields and weapons either.

 

[Batavium]

Now I find it is literally impossible to get 2 million e/s on a ship that is in the 200 to 300 meter length rang because the reactor is bigger than the bloody ship. I can only imagine how many titans have been broken by this.

The current power numbers are just that numbers. Since after the chamber power 2.0 update comes a weapons update. Right now you are trying to match the new power graph to the existing systems/weapons. But the existing systems are mostly coded to work with line power 1.0. A few things are already on chambered power 2.0. But i do not think that curently anything has been dialed in as far as absolute numbers are concerned.

There seems to be a little safety net in place by allowing the old power system to work along side the new power system. As such the universe map can still function given that most stations on the map and many other things are all powered by line power old style. It may take more then one update to get everything switched onto the new systems. Depending on how ultimately chambered power 2.0 is released. It will be the new foundation on which everything else depends. Expect a lot of debugging and after release fixes that only become apparent when everyone starts to toy with it.

 

[Dire Venom]

New numbers have no bearing on the old, seems like everything has been scaled down so you'll want to re-write your past knowledge regarding power :3

 

[Jojomo]

Now I find it is literally impossible to get 2 million e/s on a ship that is in the 200 to 300 meter length rang because the reactor is bigger than the bloody ship. I can only imagine how many titans have been broken by this.

I don't think recreating system 1.0 ships was a goal of 2.0, but here's 2 mil e/s in 300m for you.
It has stabiliser efficiency of 32.2%, which is not efficient use of mass for this ship (70% would have been better, depending on hull/armour), but it is your target power in your target length.

 

[Dire Venom]

Praise the stick!
The mighty stick has spoken, and the devs have answered!
All ships shall hearby look like sticks!

Seriously though, I cannot get over this -_-
The power system relying on ONE dimension for balancing seems broke as hell.

When I look at the new power system I do not think 'this looks fun, I wonder what I could build?'
Instead it's 'Omfg I have to build around THAT?'
At the very least they could have made reactors fun by letting them explode or something -_-

 

[Jojomo]

Praise the stick!
The mighty stick has spoken, and the devs have answered!
All ships shall hearby look like sticks!

Seriously though, I cannot get over this -_-
The power system relying on ONE dimension for balancing seems broke as hell.

On the other hand it does sound like the OP was aiming for a 200-300m "stick" anyway, regardless of whether systems were 1.0 or 2.0...

 

[Dire Venom]

On the other hand it does sound like the OP was aiming for a 200-300m "stick" anyway, regardless of whether systems were 1.0 or 2.0...

More like a needle if he was going for just 2 mill e/s for a 300m long ship XD

 

[Jojomo]

I made you a present Dire Venom ;-)



It takes more hull to cover than a "stick" power system, but that was true in systems 1.0 too: power systems that were sticks were less expensive to cover than cubes (ok, I'm admittedly ignoring the volume needed for systems in 1.0, that effectively comes for free with a 2.0 power stick)

Actually, as I wrote that sentence above I realised that's why 2.0 pushes towards "sticks" - because a 1.0 power stick had no volume for systems so they weren't used, but a 2.0 power stick has huge amounts of volume "built-in" for systems.
Based on that I'd argue that the push to wards "sticks" in 2.0 isn't a result of applying restrictions, it's a result of being given something for free that previously wasn't free (volume for systems that doesn't require any extra hull to cover).
Just thinking out loud there.

 

[Chances_Ghost]

nice i like that application of your stabaliser efficiancy argument best so far JoJo, it illustrates the point you were trying to make in the other tread alot better visually speaking.

we might actually have found a 2nd viable ship shape, the borg cube has been reborn once again

i can definatly see instances where building off a less than 100% stabaliser effectivness would prove useful now, if only to achieve better looking RP style ships, and more varied shapes for specialised pvp ships

 

[Non]

Actually, as I wrote that sentence above I realised that's why 2.0 pushes towards "sticks" - because a 1.0 power stick had no volume for systems so they weren't used, but a 2.0 power stick has huge amounts of volume "built-in" for systems.
Based on that I'd argue that the push to wards "sticks" in 2.0 isn't a result of applying restrictions, it's a result of being given something for free that previously wasn't free (volume for systems that doesn't require any extra hull to cover).
Just thinking out loud there.

So whereas before I could choose where my system volume goes by shaping my ship how I like, now I'm forced to have all my system volume between my reactor and stabilizers. Really though, who likes choices anyway?
"Built-in" volume is no gift.

Though, thats still assuming there needs to be a hull connecting stabilizers to reactors, which of course isn't needed.

 

[Coyote27]

So I have been looking t the new power system And I am not sure how to feel about it. My favorite ship designs were in the 200 meter to 300 meter length category, and it was relatively easy to fit 2 million e/s on them. Now this worked out perfect as they were the most efficient ships in my fleet. They had respectable weapons, had good shields, nice speed, and could usually jam indefinitely or for at lest a few minutes.

Now I find it is literally impossible to get 2 million e/s on a ship that is in the 200 to 300 meter length rang because the reactor is bigger than the bloody ship. I can only imagine how many titans have been broken by this.

I hope you're aware that the new power's e/s is different from the old power's e/s. 2 million old power is maybe equivalent to 500k new power, though it's not an exact conversion as some systems will be more or less power-efficient than they used to be, and the power-consumption balance is open to change.

 

[Spartan-228]

Thanks for all your input it has been very helpfully.

 

[Nosajimiki]

nice i like that application of your stabaliser efficiancy argument best so far JoJo, it illustrates the point you were trying to make in the other tread alot better visually speaking.

we might actually have found a 2nd viable ship shape, the borg cube has been reborn once again

i can definatly see instances where building off a less than 100% stabaliser effectivness would prove useful now, if only to achieve better looking RP style ships, and more varied shapes for specialised pvp ships

Note, the borg cube is actually one of the least efficient because all those stabilizers are only half the distance as if they were on either end of the ship which already does not have a long dimension. The one advantage to the borg cube is that it will be harder to kill than some designs since you can bury the reactor deep in the ship and stabilizers are so spaced out.

 

[nulitor]

Spaghetti is going to have a long life!
Unless they have the idea of finally reducing the benefits of making spaghetti.
Maybe just boost armor enough for it to be competitive with 99% miss chance.
Or have more systems that benefits from connectivity and from being in groups.

 

[Spartan-228]

Spaghetti is going to have a long life!
Unless they have the idea of finally reducing the benefits of making spaghetti.
Maybe just boost armor enough for it to be competitive with 99% miss chance.
Or have more systems that benefits from connectivity and from being in groups.

There was something mentioned about possibly making it so sections that are separated frome the main ship have reduced efficiency, or stop working all together.

 

[Jojomo]

nice i like that application of your stabaliser efficiancy argument best so far JoJo, it illustrates the point you were trying to make in the other tread alot better visually speaking.

Well, that doesn't actually demonstrate what I was talking about in the other thread - assuming a single layer of AA this ship at 32% SE is heavier than 100% SE. 32% SE doesn't suit this ship well, but it achieves the OP's goal.
The "best" SE for it is about 70%.

we might actually have found a 2nd viable ship shape, the borg cube has been reborn once again

That was just a bit of a joke, I was just showing that multiple dimensions can be used.

i can definatly see instances where building off a less than 100% stabaliser effectivness would prove useful now, if only to achieve better looking RP style ships, and more varied shapes for specialised pvp ships

Yes, for some people it will have more uses than just better power/mass ratios.

 

[Nosajimiki]

There was something mentioned about possibly making it so sections that are separated frome the main ship have reduced efficiency, or stop working all together.

That would not fix spaghetti since you could just make it into a mesh pattern instead of parallel lines. It would also introduce a very annoying issue when it comes to shipbuilding and manual deconstruction where sections that become temporarily detached would just fall off.
[doublepost=1513008664,1513008570][/doublepost]Also, this would reintroduce core death. If the blocks connected to your core get hit, your whole ships would "fall off"

 

[nulitor]

The whole sections that are separated from the ship get X or Y inflicted to them suggestion would need an algorithm that would cost a whole lot of calculation power and which would grow more and more calculation hungry with the ship size(potentially at an extreme rate)
While it could be a good idea in theory the problem is that it need hungry algorithms.

 

[Daro_Khan]

With my test last night. Weapons got a 100% buff in damage/dps gains. but the G menu does not show the correct power needs at all period.
The reactor menu under consumer tab will show *Charging needs/Resting needs* aka the power you need to charge the most effectively/the min amount of engery you need to even fire the weapon.

A 25k dps weapon i think only needed 38k power.

Also SHIELDS. got a crazy ass buff in Capacity and recharge. am still not sure on their other changes/features. But my old ship use to have 11 mill shields and maybe 50k recharge for shields in combat.

With pre-release it had like 50 mill shields and 600k recharge rate

basically the scale of what needs what has been scrambled and its like re-learning whats considered *big again* hehe