I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I'm talking about is the fact that stabilizers don't need to be placed on a single axis. By placing stabilizers on multiple axises (tilt the angle you place your stabilizers on up by 45 degrees), you can decrease the horizontal distance required for a fully-stabilized reactor.
That's still hideously elongated in a single direction (except that the direction isn't along an X/Y/Z axis) and still leads to a dumbbell shape (a rotated dumbbell).
...But if you have the space to place stabilizers in points that describe a sphere (or any geometrical figure) you probably have space to move the reactor to one edge and put the stabilizers on the opposing side, giving potentially almost twice the power, or, failing that, at least reducing the power system mass significantly with no real penalty to defensibility (seeing as there is little to no armour defense to speak of, really, at least in the traditional sense that you might imagine)
[doublepost=1514742571,1514741715][/doublepost]
I want to see some blueprints and battle footage to prove they defeat undecorated versions. Sure, I can build a ship that will swab the deck with most any RP build. Will it match a minmaxed build? Doubt it.
Offer some actual advice or go play Dark Souls while the rest of us help Schema make a mess of Starmade.
How can you be sure that it doesn't matter? Wouldn't a 10% increase in mass make a ship easier to hit?
I find this ironic (and hilarious) because you may have noticed that I'm not a fan of the new power system either.
It's not a 10% increase. It's maybe 1 or 2%. Decoratives do not weigh a lot and on the grand scale of things there aren't that many of them.
A ship in the 5k-25k mass range tends to end up with a slightly higher % of is mass being decoratives, but if you accept that a small ship can't afford the same amenities as a large one and try to keep your interiors proportional, it doesn't really matter just like at larger scales. Of course, when you get into extremely small sizes, interior HAS to have a certain size and will cause issues, but I don't think most people think their fighters should have full interiors anyway.
That reminds me - none of NPC ships use "power 2.0". Sooner or later, someone should probably start a contest to replace the old Isanths.
That is actual advice, the reason you are having issues has nothing to do with game balance, it is evident by the video I linked above that it is 100% possible for good looking ships to fuck up metaboats.
Where I come from, that's not called advice. It's called an insult. Either way, it's not particularly useful.
I think the difference in opinion stems from our experience with drastically differing scales of ships. My experience is with smaller ships and far less lag.
It is advice and also an insult, and its certainly useful. Getting proficient at pvp in any game takes a lot of work. To assume that you have the level of skill needed to make a great pvp ship and pair it with your apparent inability to make a good-looking pvp ship and to use them as your premises for the assertion that good-looking ships can't be good at pvp is poor advice, insulting, and not very useful.
