Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:21 am
by Silvestr Potash
Akalabeth wrote: 1. Star Drive 1
2.
3. Super Star Drive 4
4.
5. Heavy Nova 6
6. Quantum 7 (inefficient)
7. Quantum 7
8. Hyperdrive (inefficient)
9. Hyperdrive, Transwarp (inefficient)
10. Transwarp

The problem of course would be balancing to make most of the optionals as viable alternatives. As general rules I would say:

Inefficient drives - Burn more fuel, and are only really viable up to their established limits.

Efficient drives - Burn less fuel, and can be overburned but when they do, they should burn more fuel than the inefficient drives of the next higher engine.
How much this engines must cost?10 -transwarp 300, 9-trnawarp uneffective = 200Mc? The only reason to buy the engine is the fuel-consumption at the warp 9.(at all,one number).

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:59 pm
by Akalabeth
Silvestr Potash wrote:
Akalabeth wrote: 1. Star Drive 1
2.
3. Super Star Drive 4
4.
5. Heavy Nova 6
6. Quantum 7 (inefficient)
7. Quantum 7
8. Hyperdrive (inefficient)
9. Hyperdrive, Transwarp (inefficient)
10. Transwarp

The problem of course would be balancing to make most of the optionals as viable alternatives. As general rules I would say:

Inefficient drives - Burn more fuel, and are only really viable up to their established limits.

Efficient drives - Burn less fuel, and can be overburned but when they do, they should burn more fuel than the inefficient drives of the next higher engine.
How much this engines must cost?10 -transwarp 300, 9-trnawarp uneffective = 200Mc? The only reason to buy the engine is the fuel-consumption at the warp 9.(at all,one number).
Well I don't know the specifics, it's just an idea. Obviouslly I'd have to look at it in more detail.

But ideally the engine costs should be such that each should be a viable purchase option. Remember fuel consumption isn't just about neutronium, it's also about ship operating range. That and if you've got 10 Battleships each burning an extra 20% fuel or what not it's going to add up. Especially when you consider that some people use programs that take advantage of gravity wells to save some measly 5 kt of fuel.

But if your ship has an extra 20% fuel consumption it also means that it can only travel 83% or so of it's normal range. That and the lower engine cost will affect the E/S bonus in combat of smaller ships. The Tech 10 engine should be the ideal choice, but the Tech 9 should be a viable alternative.

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:22 pm
by Silvestr Potash
The oter side: There are the sharevare players, wich can travel at warp 8 commonly to the combat with 3x fuel effectively,4x for Nova... -so, that is a sharevare
heritage.
So, just change tech 9-transwarp uneffective onto :
----------------------Warp 7-----Warp 8------Warp 9----Cost
Heavy Nova6---------3 ------------4------------5------54
Good Warp 8 -------- 1 ------------ 1 ---------- 5-----170
Crap Warp 9 ---------- 2 ----------- 2 ---------- 2-----200

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:09 pm
by Akalabeth
Silvestr Potash wrote:The oter side: There are the sharevare players, wich can travel at warp 8 commonly to the combat with 3x fuel effectively,4x for Nova... -so, that is a sharevare
heritage.
So, just change tech 9-transwarp uneffective onto :
----------------------Warp 7-----Warp 8------Warp 9----Cost
Heavy Nova6---------3 ------------4------------5------54
Good Warp 8 -------- 1 ------------ 1 ---------- 5-----170
Crap Warp 9 ---------- 2 ----------- 2 ---------- 2-----200
Like I say, I'd have to look at the hard data itself to try and create some sort of balance for the idea.

But the main point being, that balancing the lower engines differently won't make people build them more. If people want different types of engines to be built it makes more sense to focus on the higher end of the spectrum

Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:36 am
by Silvestr Potash
Yes, you are right.May be lets the engine tech 10 at warp 9 has 1 consumption rate, tech 9 at warp 9 =2 rate, tech 8 at warp 9=3 rate, ets.