Shipwright Archive
Thread: having trouble making sense of the stats on crafted components
Page 1 of 1
Malitevv
Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:55 pm
#1
This is an example of the sort of non-sense I am seeing:
I am a master shipwright. I crafted a Mark II reactor on which I experimented to get the energy up. I got a fairly good reactor. Later, I acquired some of the special resources needed to make the overcharger and the limiter. I decided to try my hand at an extremely low mass Mark III reactor. I made a Mark III limiter, and experimented the mass down as low as I could get it. Then place the component into a Mark III reactor that used resources similar to the resources that I used to make the Mark II reactor earlier. What did I get? I got a reactor with more mass than my Mark II reactor and less energy than my Mark II reactor.
I haven't had time to test further at this point, but this is just ridiculous. Any system in which an "enhancer" for a Mark N component that yields worse stats than a Mark N-1 component thathas noenhancers at all is just broken.
What on earth is the point of lowering the mass of my Mark N reactor if it is going to have more mass and less energy than my Mark N-1 reactor did when I am done?
Is anyone else noticing these sorts of completely irrational features of this SW crafting game? Any tips on which things I shouldn't even bother trying to make (like a mass limited reactor) because they are so broken that it's a waste of time and resources? I'm loath to burn even more of my steel just testing things out to figure out what is broken and what isn't broken.
Harkyn1
Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:25 pm
#2
Well as for the More Mass On the MKIII its a higher level items so its going to have a higher mass to start , as for the energy level being low I've noticed the higher level reactors not have as big of jump as you might think they should.
Malitevv wrote:
This is an example of the sort of non-sense I am seeing:
I am a master shipwright. I crafted a Mark II reactor on which I experimented to get the energy up. I got a fairly good reactor. Later, I acquired some of the special resources needed to make the overcharger and the limiter. I decided to try my hand at an extremely low mass Mark III reactor. I made a Mark III limiter, and experimented the mass down as low as I could get it. Then place the component into a Mark III reactor that used resources similar to the resources that I used to make the Mark II reactor earlier. What did I get? I got a reactor with more mass than my Mark II reactor and less energy than my Mark II reactor.
I haven't had time to test further at this point, but this is just ridiculous. Any system in which an "enhancer" for a Mark N component that yields worse stats than a Mark N-1 component thathas noenhancers at all is just broken.
What on earth is the point of lowering the mass of my Mark N reactor if it is going to have more mass and less energy than my Mark N-1 reactor did when I am done?
Is anyone else noticing these sorts of completely irrational features of this SW crafting game? Any tips on which things I shouldn't even bother trying to make (like a mass limited reactor) because they are so broken that it's a waste of time and resources? I'm loath to burn even more of my steel just testing things out to figure out what is broken and what isn't broken.
Micco30
Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:37 pm
#3
Malitevv wrote:
I decided to try my hand at an extremely low mass Mark III reactor. I made a Mark III limiter, and experimented the mass down as low as I could get it. Then place the component into a Mark III reactor that used resources similar to the resources that I used to make the Mark II reactor earlier. What did I get? I got a reactor with more mass than my Mark II reactor and less energy than my Mark II reactor.
The limiters are a funky lot of items, for any of the components on starships. 
It all goes back to what it is supposed to do. If you look at the description of the limiter in crafting screen, youfind thatit lowers the mass of the reactor but alsolowers the amount of energy it can store. It is clear here that reducing the mass also reduces the effectivness of the item, at least in this case. so the lower energy is to be expected of the limiter. It is a bit confusing I'll admit, but to me it kind of makes sense. Hope this helps
Malitevv
Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:22 pm
#4
Micco30 wrote:
Malitevv wrote:
I decided to try my hand at an extremely low mass Mark III reactor. I made a Mark III limiter, and experimented the mass down as low as I could get it. Then place the component into a Mark III reactor that used resources similar to the resources that I used to make the Mark II reactor earlier. What did I get? I got a reactor with more mass than my Mark II reactor and less energy than my Mark II reactor.
The limiters are a funky lot of items, for any of the components on starships.
I know it lowers the mass and lowers the energy. the point is that if it lowers the energy so much that the energy is lower than a mark II reactor but it the mass is still higher than a mark II reactor, then that means that the limiter is an absolutely useless schematic that serves no gameplay purpose whatsoever. So... what is it for?
Rogue1970
Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:49 pm
#5
Have yo considered the fact yo can use a Mark I Limiter in a Mark III Reactor?
Malitevv
Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:12 pm
#6
yes I have.
If I pick a limiter a few levels lower than the level of the reactor than the deltas will be small enough to not bring the energy down so low, but that doesn't address the fundamental question. The problem in the game design for these things is still there.what, for example, isthe Mark V Limiter is for? It lowers the energy of the Mark V reactor to be less than the Mark IV reactor. Yet its mass is much much more than the Mark IV reactor's mass. The thing is completely useless. The stats on these things are clearly just designed wrong. The Mark V limiter needs to have stats similar to a Mark IV reactor to be usable at all. And you need to be able to make Mark V reactors before there is any reason to use Mark IV limiters. etc.
It doesn't make sense. The Mark N limiter should have the Mark N-1 limiter's stats. The stats for the limiters make no sense the way they are currently set up.
Message Edited by Malitevv on 11-03-2004 10:19 PM
Malitevv
Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:16 am
#7
I'm fine with tradeoff's they make sense. but I'm just saying that the trade off's offered on the reactorlimiters are broken and not balanced sensibly at all.
as for using sub-components that don't have internal tradeoffs: there is no such sub-component. They all offer some kind of tradeoff.
Dark_0ne
Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:57 am
#8
thanks for that info - up untill now I've only ever used the other subcomponent to increase energy output (and mass) ... I think I'll just stick with that one :-)
I saw the graph that someone produced in Beat that showed the Mass/Energy characteristics of the diferent levels of reactors. Massive jumps in mass at each level, and only a slight increase in energy ..... didn't look quite right to me.
I saw the graph that someone produced in Beat that showed the Mass/Energy characteristics of the diferent levels of reactors. Massive jumps in mass at each level, and only a slight increase in energy ..... didn't look quite right to me.
Malitevv
Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:34 am
#9
Yeah the mass increases by more than 100% at each Mark level, but the energy increases by about 15% at each Mark level. Fair enough, but the limiter decreases both the mass and the energy by 15% to 20%. That just doesn't make sense. The limiter mass/energy deltas are completely out of whack when compared against the Mark level mass/energy deltas.
Message Edited by Malitevv on 11-04-2004 08:36 AM
certifiedandrew
Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:37 pm
#10
I generally only use subcomponents that don't make any internal tradeoffs, and instead add mass or energy drain. I always get great results this way.
Page 1 of 1