Shipwright Archive
Thread: rate this reactor
Page 1 of 1
oayarc
Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:37 am
#1
lv 1 reactor
1225.1 mass
10167.8 generation
is 10k high for a lv 1 reactor?
Imperial Colonel & Storm Squadron Ace Pilot
EnFERn0
Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:42 am
#2
I'm not sure what mine are at (at work now)
But it seems low. 12K?
Jagged-F3l
Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:03 am
#3
I regularly make level 1 reactors with a 1225 mass and a 12600 generation rate.
UmmonPrime
Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:34 am
#5
Ya, you can get it a little higher, but if you are just starting out, this would more than likely work till you get to tier 1.
Nearro
Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:07 am
#6
Yeah, once you get to burning up higher end materials, you'll start pumping them out with 1200-1300 mass and over 12.5k generation. Though, with a low mass like that, it might be good for an A-Wing. They don't really need a lot more then 10k generation. Although, we do still live in a community of "bigger is better", so you might loose out to those pumping out ~1270 mass 12.5k generation reactors.
S-1-l2-H-C
Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:39 am
#7
with the top tier pilots using eo4, the extra reactor power is usualy needed. this is going to become alot more important if they ever fix wo3.
BinaryT
Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:57 am
#8
oayarc wrote:lv 1 reactor1225.1 mass10167.8 generationis 10k high for a lv 1 reactor?
No, in fact I would say it's on the low end.
With a MkI overcharger I can get reactors with about 1300 mass and 12.3-12.5K generation rather easily... and that's not using server-best resources, just what's spawned in the last couple of months.
This may sell well to low-end pilots, but people looking for a low-mass reactor for their Eta-2 or Bel-22 will pass it up for a reactor with higher gen.
Nearro
Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:59 am
#9
Yeah, if they ever get around to fixing that, I think a lot of the ships with more then one gun are really going to have to rethink what they are carrying.
Just think of an Oppressor with 2 guns and 3 missles.
2 Guns at ~2300 RED each
3 Missles at ~1100 RED each
Say you upgrade to WO4. You're then looking at a 1000% increase on RED for all 5, giving you a whopping total of 79,000 Drain. A reactor running RO4 (judging by the 90% increase being somewhat accurate), you're looking at a reactor pumping out over 41.5k base energy, just to power your guns.
Say you decide to stick with WO3. That's an increase of 333% for all 5, giving you a total of 23700, and a reactor that would have to handle almost 12.5k just for weapons.
I don't think people realize how big of an issue WO3 really is when it comes to reactors and overloads.
Just think of an Oppressor with 2 guns and 3 missles.
2 Guns at ~2300 RED each
3 Missles at ~1100 RED each
Say you upgrade to WO4. You're then looking at a 1000% increase on RED for all 5, giving you a whopping total of 79,000 Drain. A reactor running RO4 (judging by the 90% increase being somewhat accurate), you're looking at a reactor pumping out over 41.5k base energy, just to power your guns.
Say you decide to stick with WO3. That's an increase of 333% for all 5, giving you a total of 23700, and a reactor that would have to handle almost 12.5k just for weapons.
I don't think people realize how big of an issue WO3 really is when it comes to reactors and overloads.
Kryxal
Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:07 pm
#10
The Tuning commands might actually get a second look if that ever happens. As-is, there's no real reason to use them.
Page 1 of 1