Thought experiment/discussion on power 2.0 hull shape

[Jojomo]

I propose a thought experiment for anyone/everyone to participate in:

Create a 2D ship layout of systems on a grid/pixel surface with the parameters defined below, in the best arrangement you can design, according to SM's systems and power 2.0 coding.

Use any drawing method you like (ascii, Paint, or if you want to use magicavoxel like I did you can find it by click on my sig - no connection with myself)

Critique other people's designs, CONSTRUCTIVELY. Don't just say it's rubbish, say why it is, and how it would be better, and post your own.

Let's see at the end of the day what approximate hull shapes we end up with (note that hull shape is the effect/result, not the cause - the cause is the best system layout you can design).

Rules (the size ratios are vaguely/roughy similar to the volumes used in the Power 2.0 Intro video ship by Schine)

• Fwd end of the ship is up.
• Include:
  • 1x 9 block main stabiliser (pink)
  • 1x 9 block main reactor (blue)
  • 4x 4 block chambers (red)
  • 1x 4 block secondary stabiliser
  • 1x 4 block secondary reactor
  • 1x 9 block shields (yellow)
  • 1x 12 block thrusters (green)
• Must be at least 8 blocks space between any main reactor blocks and the 9 main stabiliser blocks. Must be at least 4 blocks space between any other reactor/stabiliser pair.
• Draw conduits (light blue) between chambers and reactors as appropriate.
• Stabilisers, shields, and thrusters can be broken down to smaller groups, reactors and chambers can't.

I'll post my first attempt:




Result is roughly wedge shaped.
And I'll point out some weaknesses myself:
- the conduites to the secondary reactor are long, which increases vulnerability.
- the secondary reactor may be better on the centerline aft of the main reactor, to avoid destruction by fire on the starboard side?

 

[Zoolimar]

 

[Dire Venom]

Very creative :3 You guys should work for a dildo company :P Or maybe my eyesight is just bad

 

[Zoolimar]

Well, you could try to change side armouring to mushroom like umbrella coverage on the nose. It will open you up to side attacks more but attacks at shallower angles should be blunted better.

 

[Jojomo]

Thanks for sharing zoolimar. Looking at this layout I'd say perhaps the primary and secondary reactors are too close together, and the same for the stabilisers. If the primary is destroyed it's likely that the secondary will be too.

 

[Ithirahad]

I'm not really getting this. There's no real-world scenario where you're restricted by the number of reactor and stabilizer blocks; the normal constraining factor is simply the total mass or volume, or occasionally the amount of armour blocks.

 

[Zoolimar]

Looking at this layout I'd say perhaps the primary and secondary reactors are too close together, and the same for the stabilisers. If the primary is destroyed it's likely that the secondary will be too.

Well I assume that I will lose either forward part of the ship or its ass in case of being beaten in combat. Secondary reactor is more or less worthless if it survives - at best it could allow to charge up a Jump, if it could have a standing priority for warp drive that kicks in immediately upon activation.

Thing is it will take probably 10+ seconds. Small ships with no active drives and shields won't survive under fire for 10 seconds barring pure luck. Bigger ships could have such a chance if they lost their main reactor upon an attack from weapons with high recharge time, but their systems are also big enough to soak up some explosions so the risk of losing both reactors/stabilizer groups at the same time is lower.

A full on missile barrage hitting in a tight pattern or some kind of "drill" weapon could destroy both groups but then there will be no ship to run away even if one of them survives. So it's more or less a moot point.

So I consider using a secondary reactor and stabilizer group as ablative armour more effective than trying to hide them somewhere while also making my ship that much bigger and heavier. If I'm lucky I could use them. If everything goes according to opponents plan there will be nothing left to use anyway. If everything goes according to my plan I don't need them.

 

[Jojomo]

Well I assume that I will lose either forward part of the ship or its ass in case of being beaten in combat. Secondary reactor is more or less worthless if it survives - at best it could allow to charge up a Jump, if it could have a standing priority for warp drive that kicks in immediately upon activation.

Thing is it will take probably 10+ seconds. Small ships with no active drives and shields won't survive under fire for 10 seconds barring pure luck. Bigger ships could have such a chance if they lost their main reactor upon an attack from weapons with high recharge time, but their systems are also big enough to soak up some explosions so the risk of losing both reactors/stabilizer groups at the same time is lower.

A full on missile barrage hitting in a tight pattern or some kind of "drill" weapon could destroy both groups but then there will be no ship to run away even if one of them survives. So it's more or less a moot point.

So I consider using a secondary reactor and stabilizer group as ablative armour more effective than trying to hide them somewhere while also making my ship that much bigger and heavier. If I'm lucky I could use them. If everything goes according to opponents plan there will be nothing left to use anyway. If everything goes according to my plan I don't need them.

Fair enough. If I understand correctly you've only put in secondary reactors and stabilisers because the rules required them.

I can understand that for organised duels, but I think they have their place for ships in a persistent universe, they could let a ship survive its fwd or aft end being destroyed.

 

[Jojomo]

I have a second layout:




Chambers are quite close to both reactors now, and spacing of reactors and stabilisers is good, I guess the weakness is that the secondary reactor is fwd of the main reactor so the majority of the time it has a higher chance of being destroyed before the main reactor, perhaps making it a bit pointless...

 

[Ithirahad]

what happened to this one?


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/334159526058000394/369923726172618753/qI0RfFD.png

Looks like that thing doesn't match the guidelines in the OP. Just a very, very slight discrepancy. Hard to notice. :P

(that said, the OP guidelines don't make any sense; those limits have nothing to do with the constraints on an actual SM ship design)

 

[The_Owl]

I'd like to point out that the seconday stabiliser system is completely pointless due to all reactors under 5 blocks not needing any. Therefore every design following this is wasting space which could be used for weapons or other systems.

 

[Az14el]

(that said, the OP guidelines don't make any sense; those limits have nothing to do with the constraints on an actual SM ship design)

^^ in reference to FD posting https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/334159526058000394/369923726172618753/qI0RfFD.png

this part here - "(the size ratios are vaguely/roughy similar to the volumes used in the Power 2.0 Intro video ship by Schine)"
i guess is the rule that was "broken", but the intro video ship is just one shape, making this whole experiment only valid for seeing how strong they can make one example hull. Jojomo is that really what you intend with this thread? only considering the one specific single design?

and if so what actual meaning does this experiment have for systems 2.0 outside of the one single archetype?

 

[FlyingDebris]

Since there appears to have been some misunderstanding, I've revised my ship design using the rules posted by the OP as of the time of my writing this.

My post is neither off-topic, a joke, or a distraction.

Here is my ship, following all the rules provided:

 

[Ithirahad]

Since there appears to have been some misunderstanding, I've revised my ship design using the rules posted by the OP as of the time of my writing this.

My post is neither off-topic, a joke, or a distraction.

Here is my ship, following all the rules provided:

While that may follow the rules, it's pretty shitposty. That is far above the requirements for a reactor of that size... Any advantage of that configuration applies to ships in the current set of mechanics as well, and the disadvantages (turn rate, exposed lines that are detrimental to break) apply as well. Nice meme, I guess, but that's such an exaggeration that it barely illustrates the issue with this new power system.

 

[CyberTao]

While that may follow the rules, it's pretty shitposty. That is far above the requirements for a reactor of that size... Any advantage of that configuration applies to ships in the current set of mechanics as well, and the disadvantages (turn rate, exposed lines that are detrimental to break) apply as well. Nice meme, I guess, but that's such an exaggeration that it barely illustrates the issue with this new power system.

from the sound of the state of things, paper is still paper and shields are easily outpaced, so why even bother with defenses when you can just cloak?

 

[Az14el]

Well above the requirements but the game doesn't really bother to keep "above requirements" in check in any meaningful way at this size, it's just another design that happens to ignore the vast majority of damage dealt to it, converted for 2.0 to show that such a meta has not been affected (and due to the implicitly non contiguous nature of new power, is honestly even more attractive now)

 

[Lecic]

While that may follow the rules, it's pretty shitposty. That is far above the requirements for a reactor of that size... Any advantage of that configuration applies to ships in the current set of mechanics as well, and the disadvantages (turn rate, exposed lines that are detrimental to break) apply as well. Nice meme, I guess, but that's such an exaggeration that it barely illustrates the issue with this new power system.

Sounds like someone hasn't grasped the ultimate meta of having a 1 km spaghetti ship that only weighs 15k mass, has all its weapons in meta gun turrets, and flies at 600 m/s yet.

The fact that the new power system doesn't get rid of this and in some ways actually encourages it IS the issue with the new power system. What do you think it is? I'm sure it pales in comparison to the truth.

 

[kulbolen]

zoom zoom

 

[Jojomo]

Since there appears to have been some misunderstanding, I've revised my ship design using the rules posted by the OP as of the time of my writing this.

My post is neither off-topic, a joke, or a distraction.

Here is my ship, following all the rules provided:

Do you see any weaknesses with this design yourself?

Is there any reason you couldn't have a very similar design with the current power system, or 2.0 without stabiliser efficiency depending on spacing from the reactor?

What overall shape would you describe this as: dumbbell? Stick? No, something else...?

I'd say its main weakness is its fragility: virtually every hit will disconnect reactors or chambers, reducing performance. Also, would you armour it? It looks like covering it in armour would be prohibitively heavy.
[doublepost=1508282821,1508282499][/doublepost]

I'd like to point out that the seconday stabiliser system is completely pointless due to all reactors under 5 blocks not needing any. Therefore every design following this is wasting space which could be used for weapons or other systems.

The squares you draw here don't correspond to individual sm blocks. All that's important is the approximate size ratios between the reactors/stabilisers/chambers.

 

[Az14el]

you don't armor them, and the majority of what gets hit is air, as opposed to system HP contributing blocks
you don't even have to agree that it's strong, I know it is from both experience & logical deduction and so do plenty of others, vastly superior to full fill of the same mass

To be clear, the percentage of your mass you lose per hit taken is your durability, the same ship condensed to close in systems loses more shp (more mass in systems destroyed) per hit and is factually less durable.

the reporting & hiding of opinions in general discussion is pretty gross too, don't think that's not being watched & cringed at