I am not a moron. I understand how taking damage works in the current game.th % reduction pentalties applied flat to your pool as sys hp% drops, even before overheat, which further nerf the utility of certain blocks
Kinda matters as you're taking damage.
B&S 2 was decided by ship speed.
Pointing out that once to take damage that "matters" specific blocks become an even worse return-for-weight than otherwise.
I realise There are a few ways of looking at things, and like to look at them all. I can see where you'd think "look at this thing too, you seem to be missing it in your stance" could be considered moving posts, but I don't really agree with you that it is. I'd invite you to read-back through and and reexamine things, but I'm just not sure you can get over what appears to be willful misinterpretation of what is said. From that perspective I am quite a bit less likely to invest time into (re)explaining, particularly to and for a hostile camp. "Here's the water you (donkeys), drink or don't, it matters not to me."
Yes, it's quite obvious you don't build for PvP, no offense. It's quite obvious ever since the updates usually roll out that they are not tested on a large enough scale and in combat situations, that most of the official testers don't indulge in PvP.System layering is indeed an interesting concept, but I have my doubts that there are multiple different ways of doing it that are all equally viable. That's to me a lack of depth. I don't believe there's a reason why you would use thrusters as a buffer, and put shields in the most protected parts of your ships.
Your choice in what system to put if you want the ship to perform well.
Yep that would be great, preferable ships that deviate from what I described (shield cap as first buffer, recharge as second, the rest is placed behind strong armor and/or in unlikely to hit positions).
Armor layering is something else though, and putting armor between systems isn't "System layering" to me. It's just creating additional protection on your ships on different levels. Which is more complicated of course than it sounds.
Agreed on the weapon layering.
As for the power aux, yes they were added to allow more complexity on larger ships (while also replacing docked reactors) where their placement and protection is crucial. I don't deny that and I'm happy that you think the same way, I was under the impression Power Aux wasn't liked at all because most didn't believe it added complexity.
I was referring to the lack of choice in this matter, see the first paragraph of my post. To me only particular system layer is viable, and anything else decreases performance. I can be wrong of course and I hope your examples will show that
As for what the new system would change:
It would offer more ways for us to add different block types related to power, and how they would affect each other if all of that was put inside a small package -> A reactor that takes little space, but represents a large area on your ship.
As our proposal was very vague on that, it's for now really just a promise that we're able to add more depth/choice on larger ships since you only need to adjust a small amount of blocks to change behavior.
That probably doesn't explain it well but it's 2:30 AM here and I want to get some sleep. I'll come back to it later but felt like leaving this post to not keep you hanging for 12+ hours
I have done exactly that. I built a ship not all that long ago using nested, docked components, that had docked generator/shield systems nested deep inside the ship. The docked generators were used to power turrets, the shields ensured that there would be shield generation going constantly even if the main hull's shield systems had failed. That ship also had an enormous quantity of thrusters for it's size and I used a large quantity of them to create additional spacing between the internally docked shield components and the exterior (docked) armored shell.
So you find it embarassing, if a new feature in an alpha game isn't perfect right from the start?I don't know who's idea it was internally, but honestly I look forward to the amount of abuse and exploits I plan on publicly releasing as a result of heat boxes alone and embarrassing them with
I wouldn't want to have so much extra mass on my ship. Also, the second reactor doesn't really look good. It has way more blocks left, but seems to be split in several parts, which kills efficiency.
I know which one I would rather have on board my ship.
One works afterwards. The other doesn't.
Why does it have to be a chandelier? You could, for example, stack multiple chandeliers along the Z-axis to create a rather lengthy shape, which you seem to like. This would even offer better protection for the parts in the aft section of such a ship. Actually, a chandelier unnecessarily increases the ship profile. It should be possible to create almost arbitrary shapes by combining heatboxes of different sizes.
Unreasonably strong compared to what? Everyone could easily build ships like that.
You basically created a performance nightmare. I respect your creativity, but killing such designs seems a good thing to me.
I think most people ignore it because to most people PvP outside opium pact is far and few in between. People may make PvP ships but then weaken them a bit for casual flying appeal or to hit that builders creativity bonerUnless they are in the outspoken minority to be involved with a major faction. Multiplayer PvP beyond 2 people butting heads is a subgame to the real game. And not very common for players who arnt super involved with the community. The Devs should take note how important PvP is, fix faction system. Add in recruitment want add. Resumes. And move players in that direction.
It was tested to destruction and created absolutely zero issues at least in SP. The trick is that all the docking points for the ship were contiguous and placed deep in the heart of the ship's highly protected bridge/CIC. Those docking points were actually more highly protected than the ship's computer systems. By the time damage was being inflicted on that section of the ship, the ship's core was already overheating. At no point did any docked sections come undone.
Yes, the second reactor has a few parts split off, but it's still mostly in a few large groups. Compare them. I guarantee you that a design like this second one is drastically more efficient after taking damage than an unarmored one.
Doesn't look like that's more than 25% of the original power production. For about the same mass I could build two reactors without internal armor.Yes, the second reactor has a few parts split off, but it's still mostly in a few large groups. Compare them. I guarantee you that a design like this second one is drastically more efficient after taking damage than an unarmored one.
Let's test it.
