Quadruple armor without cheating

[GRHayes]

smaller ships come with their own disadvantages, mostly less system HP, in practise you're just making a heavier ship with the guns of a lighter ship, I agree it looks pretty powerful and should be effective, but since it relies on armor blocks it's limited, because armor is just awful for its weight once the grey bar drops. I still don't see any actual problem with its use, the more you split it up into segments the fewer armor blocks need to be destroyed to render each docked part useless. It will still play hell with missile calculations and beam ticks, but thats an issue inherent in missiles & beams and can't be relied on forever.

Armor just runs into a cap as to what it can stop effectively in terms of weapon group size, which is pretty small for some combinations. I'm a real armor enthusiast but you do need to consider your mass compared what you can fire, not just what you can take. Thats about the biggest downside to multiple very heavy blocks in one small space I can think of.

You get greater ability to turn and so on with the smaller ship.

consider you are building a large ship with 4 thick armor. Use this method and suddenly you just freed up 3 rows of space inside your ship on each hull area. If your ship is say 500m long and 40m or so high that would be 500*40*3 for just one side of now free space to put shields, power, and anything else in you want.

Shields recharge rate formula. R = NR * 5.5 * 0.25 * (1 - 0.5 * S / C)
If you understand this formula the more damage to the shields the greater the recharge rate. S is the current amount of shields C is the max capacity of the shield capacitors. the more shields lef the higher the 0.5 remains. At 100% shields the recharge rate is 0.125 at 0% shields the recharge rate is 0.25 times 5.5 *NR (number of rechargers)

if you have 500K of shields and take a 250K damage your recharge rate is .75*.25*5.5*NR

The displayed quadruple armor system uses the primary ship as a armor holder. That was a bad move under testing should have gone with the 4 docked hulls.

take that same 500K put 100K on the primary ship and 100K on each docked hull. As you know the docked ships have to go below 50% before they get aid from the primary ship.
Assume the same 250K damage distributed over the 4 100K docked systems. That is 62.5K damage to each. making each recharge formula 1-(.375*.5*)*.25*5.5*NR = .8125*.25*5.5 That is a 6% increased recharge rate. Even though you technically have the same shield loss.
Divide it up further and you should see a higher rate increase. In short that is faster shield recovery.

However, don't expect to just slap stuff together and it work. It is going to take testing and balancing to figure out what works best for you and gives you the protection you want. But it gives you more to play with. That quadruple hull space you saved can now be used for added shielding and power.

Hmm, I might try making some ships with this! However, I'd research a self-destruct mechanism for the docked entities first, so that if a rail gets destroyed the plates won't stick around. I guess the docked armour could all be on the outside and get shot off a launch rail if some activators get shot down.

Also, 10/10 best new terrain for cars with spinning wheels!

You could also build the docking section and core where you can eject them from the ship.

 

[NeonSturm]

Shields recharge rate formula. R = NR * 5.5 * 0.25 * (1 - 0.5 * S / C)
If you understand this formula the more damage to the shields the greater the recharge rate. S is the current amount of shields C is the max capacity of the shield capacitors. the more shields lef the higher the 0.5 remains. At 100% shields the recharge rate is 0.125 at 0% shields the recharge rate is 0.25 times 5.5 *NR (number of rechargers)

Thus a docked shield supplier which permanently drains itself to shortly above 0% when supplying would receive the full bonus of 0.25 all the time?
A shield tank might compare "0.25 from 99% to 0%" to "(0.25 + 0.125)/2 from 99% to 0%" and compare the bonus to additional cost for shield-supply beams.
0.25 > 0.1875 but armour hp buy time so it's more like 0.25 > 0.2 or 0.25 > 0.21 instead of the direct average from (0.25 + 0.125)/2.

Compare that extra 0.4 to 0.6, that extra 20% recharge to the cost of shield-suppliers, what are your results? I think they are good, especially when you like modular designs.

But is there a way of "equalizing shield charge" rather than "spending all you've got or a fixed, pre-defined percentage of that"?

StarTrek has "all energy on front shields", I want such a button too!

 

[GRHayes]

Thus a docked shield supplier which permanently drains itself to shortly above 0% when supplying would receive the full bonus of 0.25 all the time?
A shield tank might compare "0.25 from 99% to 0%" to "(0.25 + 0.125)/2 from 99% to 0%" and compare the bonus to additional cost for shield-supply beams.
0.25 > 0.1875 but armour hp buy time so it's more like 0.25 > 0.2 or 0.25 > 0.21 instead of the direct average from (0.25 + 0.125)/2.

Compare that extra 0.4 to 0.6, that extra 20% recharge to the cost of shield-suppliers, what are your results? I think they are good, especially when you like modular designs.

But is there a way of "equalizing shield charge" rather than "spending all you've got or a fixed, pre-defined percentage of that"?

StarTrek has "all energy on front shields", I want such a button too!

A lot of games have were you could balance shields or even focus the direction.

As for is there a way to balance shields any better. All I can say is we are left with the formula they put in the game.
It is one of those things finding the best balance of what you have.

Unfortunately their formula lends to large ships being even more powerful if they use this method than before.
Consider the 500K shield system
lets say they had 10000 Sheild rechargers
Remember the two formulas above after a 250K hit.
with the single 500K you had 0.5*.25*NR*5.5 being the recharge rate. In this case well use NR of 10000 =6875
Lets say you take the 10000 and divide it up 2000 per module and 2000 for the primary ship.
Each module 0.735*0.25*NR*5.5 (NR = 2000) that is 2021.25 per module or 8085 recharge rate total. You could possibly improve on this further. Since the primary doesn't get hit as often now you could reduce it and put part of its chargers on each module say give them an extra 250 module each and it reduce to 1000. thus 0.735*.25*2250*5.5 = 2273.90 for a total recharge rate of 9095.625

Instead of 4 modules you could go to more modules and get more of a gain.
Realize you are only using an added rail, rail docker and a core. You are still using the same number of shields, power and so on that you where in the ship to start with. You are just arranging them differently.

9095-6875= 2220 2220/6875= 0.323 That is a 32% increase in recharge all together. With just the 4 modules and using the same number of blocks the original ship had.


Now imagine you had a ship with say 4 thick hull and you decide to go this way but go to 8 using 2 checker patterns of 4 groups.
You are just using an extra 4 dockers,rails,and cores. Yet you can again increase efficiency.

Then take that added space where you saved 3 rows of armor and use it for more shields and rechargers primarily.

This is something a large ship can take much greater advantage of. It can mean it will take weapons system 2 or 3 times more powerful will be needed to effectively take shields down on a ship that fully takes advantage of it.

 

[Az14el]

hmmm its all getting a bit mathy and breaking away from the elephant in the room
Armor trade offs weight, even if you place it in fancy ways it's still potentially 0.25 mass per block, the higher your surface area to volume (IE the smaller your ship gets), the more important ever point of weight spent on your surface is, the more crippling it is.

Placing more blocks in one place is just making your ship bigger while maintaining the illusion that it is smaller, armor blocks carry their own downsides with them, no matter where you put them.

I could really only see this used sparingly on a larger ship where heavy docked armor is viable, and sparingly because of the entity cost.

 

[kiddan]

Better use area triggers - they also trigger when nearby blocks get added or removed the last time I tested it.

Hmm, can't seem to get detectors to sense a block being placed, broken, or picked up. It there a certain configuration I need the detector and stuff in, or is it most-likely just no longer possible?

Also, I've made an armour un-docking system! This is planned to activate when the rail dockers are in danger, to prevent the laggy aftermath.

 

[NeonSturm]

Hmm, can't seem to get detectors to sense a block being placed, broken, or picked up. It there a certain configuration I need the detector and stuff in, or is it most-likely just no longer possible?

Also, I've made an armour un-docking system! This is planned to activate when the rail dockers are in danger, to prevent the laggy aftermath.

I tried to make a clock by pushing a core around inside a pipe.
I made a 1x1xLength tube with an area trigger near both ends (the invisible area trigger, not the controller) and noticed that it made the area trigger controller attached to it switch colours when I placed or removed a nearby block.

It could be that area triggers only trigger once every 5 sec for performance reasons or that they won't work across multiple entities this way.

 

[kiddan]

I tried to make a clock by pushing a core around inside a pipe.
I made a 1x1xLength tube with an area trigger near both ends (the invisible area trigger, not the controller) and noticed that it made the area trigger controller attached to it switch colours when I placed or removed a nearby block.

It could be that area triggers only trigger once every 5 sec for performance reasons or that they won't work across multiple entities this way.

Hmm, I think I've got an idea as-to how I could do something similar on my ship now. Thanks!

 

[Gasboy]

I see this being usable to protect specific systems inside a ship. 'cause wouldn't it be a lagfest to deck an entire large-ish ship out with this?

 

[GRHayes]

hmmm its all getting a bit mathy and breaking away from the elephant in the room
Armor trade offs weight, even if you place it in fancy ways it's still potentially 0.25 mass per block, the higher your surface area to volume (IE the smaller your ship gets), the more important ever point of weight spent on your surface is, the more crippling it is.

Placing more blocks in one place is just making your ship bigger while maintaining the illusion that it is smaller, armor blocks carry their own downsides with them, no matter where you put them.

I could really only see this used sparingly on a larger ship where heavy docked armor is viable, and sparingly because of the entity cost.

Weight has already been discussed. In fact I brought the issue up. Suggested it primarily for thick hull replacement.
I also did a post on 2x armor. For small ships the biggest advantage would be using the shield bennefits of multiple docked entities to get the 30% increase in shield recharging.

Another good place to use it would be space stations.

Hmm, can't seem to get detectors to sense a block being placed, broken, or picked up. It there a certain configuration I need the detector and stuff in, or is it most-likely just no longer possible?

Also, I've made an armour un-docking system! This is planned to activate when the rail dockers are in danger, to prevent the laggy aftermath.

Good work.

As for checking how many blocks are broken. I suspect you would need to do the area triggers on the docked entity itself then use wireless to tell the primary the issue.

I see this being usable to protect specific systems inside a ship. 'cause wouldn't it be a lagfest to deck an entire large-ish ship out with this?

It depends. Some what on your system.
But I suspect it might be an issue as long as chunks are continued to be used on player ships.
It would be much faster if they went to a component group system for rendering and storage especially for things people build.
It is a more natural system and has less overhead to deal with.

 

[Az14el]

Weight has already been discussed. In fact I brought the issue up. Suggested it primarily for thick hull replacement.
I also did a post on 2x armor. For small ships the biggest advantage would be using the shield bennefits of multiple docked entities to get the 30% increase in shield recharging.

I guess what my real point was is that the game handles these entites and their destruction pretty well with cannons, however missiles & beams are both working in unintended ways against armor (they're officially considered "bugged" against it iirc and designs that weave multiple layers of shield [against missiles] or armor [beams] in a small space merely exploit their weaknesses more heavily, I won't rely on this since it had better be fixed one day). So I don't use them to test armor, I use high pen spec cannons, and judge armor designs accordingly.

I just really don't see this being worth its weight on anything small, or worth its entity count on anything large, not as the game is right now. Not in MP conditions.

Also worth mentioning that while i talked shit on missiles being bugged and performing poorly vs fancy armor, that only applies up until they hit a critical dumbage number and just vaporise everything they hit no matter what anyway, afterall, they can scale near infinitely, block HP cannot.

 

[GRHayes]

I guess what my real point was is that the game handles these entites and their destruction pretty well with cannons, however missiles & beams are both working in unintended ways against armor (they're officially considered "bugged" against it iirc and designs that weave multiple layers of shield [against missiles] or armor [beams] in a small space merely exploit their weaknesses more heavily, I won't rely on this since it had better be fixed one day). So I don't use them to test armor, I use high pen spec cannons, and judge armor designs accordingly.

I just really don't see this being worth its weight on anything small, or worth its entity count on anything large, not as the game is right now. Not in MP conditions.

The reason it does work as much with cannons is a cannons energy is to one block if that block is destroyed it is then extended to the block behind. So there is no means by which to distribute it over several shields. If they add penetration or explosive effect to the cannon it will effect it like it does beams because the cannon energy is distributed over multiple blocks at one time.

I don't see this as something that will get fixed. Fix it how?
Make docked entities unable to have shields?
Combine all shields on the ship into one pool?
Create a system ensure damage from a single source isn't spread across multiple shields or that those shields are then pooled?
Attempting any of those would make this game seriously broken and suck worse than this.

The fact is this is a matter of natural law and someone being smart enough to do math and make use of it. That is what happens when you give people the ability to build stuff and you try and emulate stuff that relies on math.

I would rate the chances of this being fixed as you say at the 0.0001% mark because I honestly don't believe anyone working on this game has that level of stupidity. The 0.0001 is some how they get seriously drunk or have a mental break down and decide this is an issue to work on.

A consideration for you the ship I was working on until I discovered the bug about stuff coming ungroup and a shield recharge system based on shared hull distribution with a shield recharge rate of around 40 million. The missiles system I was testing with the ungroup issue was 300x16x16.
was what I was building to test against it but it crapped out because of the ungroup issue.

Consider 5 of the power systems that each produce 191M power. The missile to fire used over half of the power from one such system. granted with it recharged in 1 second roughly. The problem is the missile even though power is back can't refire. In that time my shields can be back up fully. That means it would take making a ship that can exceed the combat recharge rate of 40M a second.

I also tested a 4x4x500 auto cannon.

The fact is if they hadn't tried using a nerf like .25% of power .... and just game shields a flat recharge rate then this wouldn't have made a difference. It is the manner they chose to nerfed the shielding that makes it actually worth using that and each part can be powered separately.

 

[Az14el]

Those shields against properly functioning weapons (which against that structure is only cannons right now) will function exactly like multiple layers of shielding should. Upfeeding through rails of shields & power is a feature (albeit a not well documented and not immediately obvious one, but absolutely intended), and literally the only "inflating" or advantageous design that specifically exploits this fact is loads of reactors clipped inside of eachother to up-feed a primary (similar but much less "fair" than your 500x30x30 or whatever design). Still absurdly heavy but with actual scaling blocks this is legitimately powerful. Ultimately any supply or damage module (scaling) becomes more valuable than any armor block (capped) weight for weight at a very small group size, and only scale further ahead in value as you increase that. You get what you placed the blocks for imo, or more accurately, you get your weights worth.

A "fix" would be possible, there's 3 things wrong in this whole equation.
1: Missile calcs are bugged, they over damage armor HP and possibly under damage the armor blocks, and they whiff a lot when they hit multiple shielded entities.
2: Beams are intentionally nerfed right now to only damage 1 armor block per tick, this is for game balance because working "as intended" beams are currently OP, they need their damage calcs reworked as well before they can be given their full strength back.
3: Armor needs more effective HP per block, and a more durable HP bar before/as these weapons are fixed.

So like I've been saying, less to do with the armor/shield entity itself.
While the armor design itself is brilliant, it's still just making 4x as many placements of one of the lowest efficiency blocks you can put on a small ship possible.

 

[GRHayes]

Those shields against properly functioning weapons (which against that structure is only cannons right now) will function exactly like multiple layers of shielding should. Upfeeding through rails of shields & power is a feature (albeit a not well documented and not immediately obvious one, but absolutely intended), and literally the only "inflating" or advantageous design that specifically exploits this fact is loads of reactors clipped inside of eachother to up-feed a primary (similar but much less "fair" than your 500x30x30 or whatever design). Still absurdly heavy but with actual scaling blocks this is legitimately powerful. Ultimately any supply or damage module (scaling) becomes more valuable than any armor block (capped) weight for weight at a very small group size, and only scale further ahead in value as you increase that. You get what you placed the blocks for imo, or more accurately, you get your weights worth.

A "fix" would be possible, there's 3 things wrong in this whole equation.
1: Missile calcs are bugged, they over damage armor HP and possibly under damage the armor blocks, and they whiff a lot when they hit multiple shielded entities.
2: Beams are intentionally nerfed right now to only damage 1 armor block per tick, this is for game balance because working "as intended" beams are currently OP, they need their damage calcs reworked as well before they can be given their full strength back.
3: Armor needs more effective HP per block, and a more durable HP bar before/as these weapons are fixed.

So like I've been saying, less to do with the armor/shield entity itself.
While the armor design itself is brilliant, it's still just making 4x as many placements of one of the lowest efficiency blocks you can put on a small ship possible.

You aren't understanding why the shields work the way they do. They don't work because of a layered system. They work because they cause the damage level on the shields that are hit to first distribute the points across multiple shields. Those shields are small which causes them to go to a greater point of depletion. That greater point of depletion is what is the advantage. Because the further shields are depleted the faster they charge. example if your shields are half way depleted they get only .125% charge rate. If they are fully depleted they get a 0.25% charge rate.
That is the advantage it is the manor in which they charge that makes the difference.
So regardless if they change the weapons the shields are going to react the same to that.
I don't have to spread it out over just 4 shields I can do it over more 8 and 16 are easily done. 4 gives a 32% increase in charge rate easily.
The more it is spread over the more that goes up.
What the quad armor really offers is that even if a hit is to a single block there is going to be 4 shields there that can be hit and divide it.

The missile damage system was just redone to a ray trace system to improve it. with that explosive force lost to open space is lost because their isn't a block to absorb it. However explosions don't happen to just a single block they happen over an area. I even submitted a method they could do the missile explosions and get as accurate results without the massive ray trace calculations. It is in the suggestions. The big issues with missiles right now is they can only handle so many at a time because of the excessive calculations because of how they are handling them. I've even provided how they can fix those. If they do or don't is up to them. The second issue with missiles is their flight system and calculating it continually. They could go to a flock based system or group formation system and save on the individual missile calcs.

 

[Az14el]

Well I do hope you take it easy on the rest of us, I'm lost here with the wordiness, I just don't see anything happening here out of the usual, except this time around it doesn't rely on clipping (which im thankful for)

 

[Master_Artificer]

This reminds me too much of triforcing from the old robocraft days...

God it took forever to make that XD
Glad to see someone with something like this in this game too!

 

[NeonSturm]

Ok, you got me confused.
A shield at 99% recharges at ~0.125% *recharge
A shield at 1% recharges at ~0.25% recharge.

1 big shield has 1* 1000sh capacity and 1 *10sh/s *0.1875% recharge on average.
10 small shields have 10* 100sh capacity and 10 *1sh/s *0.1875% recharge rate on average.

1 big shield receives 1* 100damage to 1000shields: damage% = 10% of capacity.
10 small shields receive 10* 10damgae to 100shields: damage% = 10% of capacty.

How can you get a 32% increase? 132% of 0.125% = 0.165% and still lower than 0.25%.
It looks like you can approach 0.25% but never reach it.

It looks like a question of wether 32% recharge rate is more efficiently archived by complex design or block count.
32% recharge is a 32% increase in block count which is a 109.7%^3 - approximately a system 10% bigger in every of 3 dimensions.

Now compare a 100m ship to a 110m ship. How big does the difference look like? Is it important?
I think complex designs only matter if the planing phase pays back in the production phase - for mass-produced fighters or drones, but not for designing a capital with it.
It might pay pack when you design your flagship with it "to make it special", but then it only pays back in your mind and not on paper.

This reminds me too much of triforcing from the old robocraft days...

God it took forever to make that XD
Glad to see someone with something like this in this game too!

This is a good example of planing cost!

 

[GRHayes]

Ok, you got me confused.
A shield at 99% recharges at ~0.125% *recharge
A shield at 1% recharges at ~0.25% recharge.

1 big shield has 1* 1000sh capacity and 1 *10sh/s *0.1875% recharge on average.
10 small shields have 10* 100sh capacity and 10 *1sh/s *0.1875% recharge rate on average.

1 big shield receives 1* 100damage to 1000shields: damage% = 10% of capacity.
10 small shields receive 10* 10damgae to 100shields: damage% = 10% of capacty.

How can you get a 32% increase? 132% of 0.125% = 0.165% and still lower than 0.25%.
It looks like you can approach 0.25% but never reach it.

It looks like a question of wether 32% recharge rate is more efficiently archived by complex design or block count.
32% recharge is a 32% increase in block count which is a 109.7%^3 - approximately a system 10% bigger in every of 3 dimensions.

Now compare a 100m ship to a 110m ship. How big does the difference look like? Is it important?
I think complex designs only matter if the planing phase pays back in the production phase - for mass-produced fighters or drones, but not for designing a capital with it.
It might pay pack when you design your flagship with it "to make it special", but then it only pays back in your mind and not on paper.


This is a good example of planing cost!

I showed how to get the 32% above in one of the replies. Here is the link to it.**There is an error in it** I rushed copying stuff from paper over. Quadruple armor without cheating

Here is the link to how shields work
Defense Systems - StarMade Wiki

You will find this nasty little formula there R = NR * 5.5 * 0.25 * (1 - 0.5 * S / C)
It is the recharge rate of the shield under combat conditions.
C is the shields capacitance S is the current level of shielding. Notices S/C equates to the percent of shielding you have left.
that is multiplied times 0.5 and subtracted from one. That is multiplied times 0.25. That means your recharge rate under combat ranches from 25% to 12.5% and it is recharging faster the more shields that are lost.

The 32% efficiency is achieved by design not block count.
Well use the same number for both systems again. 500K worth of shielding. 10,000 rechargers, 250K damage.
Then normal ship:
NR=10,000
S = 250,000
C=500,000
R = 10000 * 5.5 * 0.25 *(1 - 0.5 * 250000/500000) , 13750 * (0.75) =10312.5

Docked system
NRp = 1000, NR1=2250, NR2=2250, NR3=2250, NR4=2250
Sp=0, S1=62,500, S2=62,500, S3=62500, S4=62500
Cp=100,000 C1=100,000 C2=100,000 C3=100,000 C4=100,000
Damage doesn't happen to the primary unless the out shields are lost.
Recharge on outer shields is the same for each if equal damage is applied
R1234 = 2250 * 5.5 * 0.25 * (1 -0.5 *37,500/100,000) , 3093.75 * (0.8125) = 2513.67 times 4 = 10054 Which isn't as much. however
notice he 81.25% vs the 75% What makes the difference is I didn't use all the rechargers I left 1000 on the primary system. They are also producing shields 1000 if they don't go into combat mode that is 5500 if they do hit combat mode it is 687.5 with 100% of its shields.
If it shields go down it also acts more efficiently. however not as well as if it isn't in combat mode.
I tested it as long as the primary shields do not get hit they produce in non-combat mode meaning 5500 for that 1000. left on it.
5500+10054= 15554 That is an added 50% there.

The image below is the test bed use to determine shield recharge rate of the primary ship.
Both have 500K shield capacitance. However the docked ship has only 2500 recharger vs the primary ship has 10,000
I damaged the shields on the docked system down to 10K shields remaining. That way not to hit the primary shields.
I checked how fast it was recharging 3 to 4% jumps. which would be 15K or more. at most the docked can recharge is 3437.5 it decreases as shields charge. This also exceeds the primary ship's shields if in combat mode. which would be at 6875 even combined 10312 doesn't equal 3 to 4% which would be between 15K and 20K.

Looking at it more there may be a greater explanation. The primary ship only has 5439 shield caps but 10,000 shield regen. Maybe only 5439 of the regen is needed for the primary shield allowing the other 4561 to provide recharge at full to the docked system.

Guess the way to look at it is this just means there is a lot more play and balancing we can do to work with shields. That or their is a bug that is making his all possible.
It would be nice to see others test it and see if they get the same results or if they can narrow it down more.

 

[NeonSturm]

Which isn't as much. however
notice he 81.25% vs the 75% What makes the difference is I didn't use all the rechargers I left 1000 on the primary system.

Critical Error while parsing information information with my mind
(and a lil headache because of a dissonance between "must-be" and "is" which activated the "make adjustments to perception to protect self"-action):

EDIT: He left both on the main system - While reading it I already was a bit too tired.
FAIL: You left no (shield) recharger on the main system.
Note: He left both recharger and capacitors on the main system – S is not shield but damage.
But you left shield capacitors on the main system.

Ofcourse damage/capacity is higher if 250/500 becomes 250/400.
Your shield has less capacity.
I was assuming you meant 500*1 vs 125*4 (distributing 500 over multiple entities) but missing the point that you distributed 100 to an entity not included in the obvious summary of 4.
​

This means your recharger start earlier to regenerate faster because the 0%-mark is moved up by an offset of [capacity on the main entity].

So you are saying you use the main-entities shields to backup if the modular shields fall below 0%?

​

Ok, but I can do the very same much simpler: I make modular shield generators which shield-supply and always generate at full speed.
Because that shield reactor has

a capacity = 2x combat recharge rate regeneration
a shield supply =

1.1x combat recharge production at 0%
or
2.2x combat recharge production at 100% (because recharge is 1/2 at 100%)
or
1.1+ 1.1 /2 = 1.65 average combat recharge production with (0%+100%)/2​

the shield reactor has a full-depletion time of 200% / (100% * (1.65 -1) ) = (200/65)% = about 3 seconds.​

This means that my optimal shield reactor needs 1.1 times the max-combat-recharge of shield recharger as shield-supply and 3 seconds after taking damage to reach the full regeneration rate.


I am a bit tired now so I won't do the math with shield-suppliers, but I already provided values to compare your efficient designs against.
|
Note, that the production of only (NR *5.5 *0.25) = NR*1.375 also reduces the strength of shield-supply required (which perhaps let it make cost).

 

[GRHayes]

Critical Error while parsing information information with my mind
(and a lil headache because of a dissonance between "must-be" and "is" which activated the "make adjustments to perception to protect self"-action):

You left no (shield) recharger on the main system.
But you left shield capacitors on the main system.

Ofcourse damage/capacity is higher if 250/500 becomes 250/400.
Your shield has less capacity.
I was assuming you meant 500*1 vs 125*4 (distributing 500 over multiple entities) but missing the point that you distributed 100 to an entity not included in the obvious summary of 4.
​

This means your recharger start earlier to regenerate faster because the 0%-mark is moved up by an offset of [capacity on the main entity].

So you are saying you use the main-entities shields to backup if the modular shields fall below 0%?

​

Ok, but I can do the very same much simpler: I make modular shield generators which shield-supply and always generate at full speed.
Because that shield reactor has

a capacity = 2x combat recharge rate regeneration
a shield supply =

1.1x combat recharge production at 0%
or
2.2x combat recharge production at 100% (because recharge is 1/2 at 100%)
or
1.1+ 1.1 /2 = 1.65 average combat recharge production with (0%+100%)/2​

the shield reactor has a full-depletion time of 200% / (100% * (1.65 -1) ) = (200/65)% = about 3 seconds.​

This means that my optimal shield reactor needs 1.1 times the max-combat-recharge of shield recharger as shield-supply and 3 seconds after taking damage to reach the full regeneration rate.


I am a bit tired now so I won't do the math with shield-suppliers, but I already provided values to compare your efficient designs against.
|
Note, that the production of only (NR *5.5 *0.25) = NR*1.375 also reduces the strength of shield-supply required (which perhaps let it make cost).

Suggest you reread it. I left 100K shield capacity on the primary ship. (Cp)

 

[NeonSturm]

Suggest you reread it. I left 100K shield capacity on the primary ship. (Cp)

True, I said I am a bit tired - it's late here. But I gonna fix this anyway

Edit: But you said "primary" which indicates that there is a "secondary" equivalent "main" has no equivalent.
"primary" carries the link to 1st, 2nd and 3rd on equal footing while "main" carries the link to "biggest part" and is a better choice here.