Dude, they're docked reactors. They are reactors. That are docked. They're just less versatile than the old ones, but thats still exactly what they are, and they still have every one of the problems the old ones had that made the devs get rid of them. And no, the beams were never the problem, and you know it.
That'd be fine except that we all know "docked reactor" as a term specifically referring to brick-shaped reactor entities firing a power supply beam. For the sake of people understanding exactly what you're referring to, simply use a different term (e.g. "multiple reactors" like I do).
Multiple reactors don't have all the problems of the docked reactors: besides the fact that they don't require hit calcs for beams, they most importantly don't allow ships of infinite size - because they don't supply power to the root entity, which is where thrusters are powered from.
I already answered you in the other thread that I don't find those acceptable either, but that they are much less damaging than giant reactors. Why don't you leave it in the topic it actually belongs in instead of trying to drag it across multiple topics, eh? Or at least limit it to threads where its actually the topic of conversation?
They aren't less damaging than reactors unless the collision volume of both the entity and the ship together are less.
As I've said before, an undocked door in a titan might require far more collision calcs than an undocked reactor in a frigate.
Anyway, as you find "truly massive" internal turrets unacceptable, there's nothing else that needs to be said on this.
Picking a fight across multiple threads is usually considered to be in very bad taste.
Accusing the person _you_ started an argument with, and that you implied was a cheat, and that you publicly stated would be banned from servers if you had the power, of "picking a fight" might also be considered to be.
And not because I've done anything to you - just because I build, with vanilla power-sharing behaviour, in a way that you don't like.
Multiple reactors have many benefits for players, both PvP and RP, and use perfectly well understood, default, fundamental behaviour, without allowing ships of infinite size.
The lag problems that can be associated with them becoming undocked have
many potential, and non-invasive, solutions.
EDIT:
Below is a graph showing the mass of ships (units of kt) possible with multiple reactors (i.e. up to softcap because multiple reactors don't allow the root ship entity that powers thrusters to exceed softcap power), based on your desired TM ratio.
Not very large.
I would also have shown a curve for "unlimited" sized ships (i.e. what is possible with actual docked reactors), effectively limited only by when adding another thruster block and a portion of a power reactor block required to power it are heavy enough to reduce T/M, but those masses are so ridiculously large compared to this curve that you wouldn't even be able to see this curve.
With docked reactors/no softcap, thrusters don't become too heavy to add until you have over 122 Billion of them!
The mass values for that "unlimited" curve are more than 300,000 times greater than the masses for this curve! (Assuming the docked reactor blocks achieve 50% of max efficiency)
In other words, multiple reactors only allow ships 0.00033% of the mass that docked reactors allow.
So anyone saying that multiple reactors are "exactly the same thing" as docked reactors is very, very wrong.
