Balance is getting better - finally a Gas Core tech have some combat value on it's own!

[corisai]

I'd completed all "normal" fission tech tree in 0.3.100 - so I don't have only Terrawatt Fission & Pulse Fission drives. Every other drive is unlocked & completed.

So I tried to make an early kinetic ship for orbital defense. To my surprise - seems that devs buffed Gas Core drives and they are no longer absolutely useless junk!

Look at that (a baseline Pegasus Corvette):
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3013015135
I'm unable to install more armor & can't upgrade anything aside from completing Coilguns research as Railgun here is just for placeholder ^_~)

Now the same ship but using a Super Vortex Drive:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3013010418
Yes, it have a bit less dV but hey - at least it much more agile! If I will sacrifice side armor - I could get something like 16-1-1, still with pretty decent turn rate and passable dV.

Sadly - they still far below missile Escort in agility and combat performance but finally they're usable in early fission era (huh, I can't seriously call a top-tier Gas reactor with Neutronium Spiker "early" tech).

So as conclusion - thank you devs for keeping work on your game!

P.S. Would like to hear any suggestion on how to turn this Corvette into something more efficient. Anyone having a recent experience with Pulse Fission / Terrawatt Fission drives? Could I get from them better dV & armor without praying RNG Jesus for a Neutron Flux Torch?

[gimmethegepgun]

Uhh... unless they've increased the combat thrust multiplier, it looks like it has the same stats it's always had. And my memory of the Specific Power of the Gas Core reactors matches what they are currently (with the Vapor Core reactors continuing to match the highly-scientific term of "hot garbage". Vapor Core III can't even power a 6x Advanced Cavity Drive, which it unlocks)

[corisai]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

with the Vapor Core reactors continuing to match the highly-scientific term of "hot garbage"

Yes, I tried to create ANYTHING with them and get the same result - hot, useless garbage.

It's absolutely hillarious - Vapor Core 3 have worse specific power then Molten Core 1, cost more resources and have only tiny better efficiency (92% vs 85%) and maximum output (15 GW vs 6 GW).

Vapor Core 1 is simply worse then Molten Core 1 completely. Yes, next tier of tech is worse then previous tier. I can't call it anything but idiotic move (none of such reactors exist so all their stats are pure devs imagination).

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by corisai:

It's absolutely hillarious - Vapor Core 3 have worse specific power then Molten Core 1, cost more resources and have only tiny better efficiency (92% vs 85%) and maximum output (15 GW vs 6 GW).

Directly comparing stats of different classifications of reactors is kind of pointless without also comparing the drives they power. The reactor stats are only relevant on their own if you're using electric drives, in which case it barely matters what reactor you're using as long as it isn't a Fuel Cell.

Vapor Core 1 is simply worse then Molten Core 1 completely. Yes, next tier of tech is worse then previous tier. I can't call it anything but idiotic move

You also need to consider availability of drive techs: a lot of the Gas Core drives are better than the Lars, the only Molten Core drive that you're guaranteed to unlock (and that's just from Gas Core Fission, not Advanced Fission Systems)

[corisai]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Directly comparing stats of different classifications of reactors is kind of pointless without also comparing the drives they power.

Ahem... Let's look on Fission reactors line:
Solid 1.
75% efficiency. 40 tons per GW. Max 2 GW. 0.2 fissiles per GW.
Compact Solid 1.
77.5% efficiency. 6 tons per GW. Max 1.5 GW. 0.03 fissiles per GW.
Molter Core 1.
85% efficiency. 3 tons per GW. Max 6 GW. 0.015 fissiles per GW.
Vapor Core 1.
90% efficiency. 13 tons per GW. Max 6 GW. 0.065 fissiles per GW.
Gas Core 1.
90% efficiency. 10 tons per GW. Max 6 GW. 0.05 fissiles per GW.

Before Gas reactors - every next tier is better in everything (and then scales up for their types of drive). Gas reactors are breaking that logic & Vapor Core 3 have even less max output then Compact Solid 5!

Plus as you correctly noticed - Vapor Core unable to fully utilize drives it's unlocking.

And on top of it all Gas Core "combat drives" (read with non near-zero thrust) have Exhaust Thrust not only less then Advanced Pulsar & Pegasus - no, they even worse then high-unlock chance Fission Spinner Drive.

So that's ruining all potential of Gas Core reactor too - high efficiency of it negated by weak engines.

P.S. Usage of Gas Core 1-2 is limited too - IMHO they're just artificial bloat of "content", unifying 1-2-3 levels into single Gas Core Reactor with a higher research cost will be much better (especially as don't need additional techs to unlock Gas Core 3).

P.P.S. For Vapor Core - I can't see any logic behind it except a "placeholder" or "meme for lulz".

[corisai]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

You also need to consider availability of drive techs: a lot of the Gas Core drives are better than the Lars, the only Molten Core drive that you're guaranteed to unlock (and that's just from Gas Core Fission, not Advanced Fission Systems)

Huh? Cavity and Quartz are still worse. Vortex is better, true. Lightbulb is somewhat better. Everything else from Gas Core need roll a chance too.

P.S. Now when you pointed on that - Cavity and Quartz are really hilarious drives. Worse then previous tier 100% unlock drive

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Directly comparing stats of different classifications of reactors is kind of pointless without also comparing the drives they power.

Ahem... Let's look on Fission reactors line:
Solid 1.
75% efficiency. 40 tons per GW. Max 2 GW. 0.2 fissiles per GW.
Compact Solid 1.
77.5% efficiency. 6 tons per GW. Max 1.5 GW. 0.03 fissiles per GW.
Molter Core 1.
85% efficiency. 3 tons per GW. Max 6 GW. 0.015 fissiles per GW.
Vapor Core 1.
90% efficiency. 13 tons per GW. Max 6 GW. 0.065 fissiles per GW.
Gas Core 1.
90% efficiency. 10 tons per GW. Max 6 GW. 0.05 fissiles per GW.

This doesn't contradict my point. Those stats are largely irrelevant without also considering the drive, because the nuclear drives can only be used with specific types of nuclear reactors.
You're also overlooking the importance of Efficiency. In reality, using the Tin Droplet Radiator (125 tons per GW waste), those Specific Power numbers are actually:
Solid I: 71.25 t/GW
CS I: 34.125 t/GW
Molten I: 21.75 t/GW
Vapor I: 25.5 t/GW
Gas I: 22.5 t/GW
These numbers worsen, favoring the Gas Cores, with worse radiator tech (and obviously the inverse is true, but better radiators than Tin Droplet are much higher tech level and need a bunch of Nobles or Exotics)

Also, that's the floor. When looking at the ceiling, Gas Core III crushes the others in efficiency, at 95%, compared to 87.5% for Compact Solid V and 90% for Molten III, (and if you look at the Terawatt reactors, which need Advanced Fission Systems, Terawatt Gas Core III beats all other fission reactors except for the Salt Water reactors in every category)

And on top of it all Gas Core "combat drives" (read with non near-zero thrust) have Exhaust Thrust not only less then Advanced Pulsar & Pegasus - no, they even worse then high-unlock chance Fission Spinner Drive.

Burner has a decent amount of thrust and much better EV. It's also guaranteed, and (slightly) beats out the guaranteed Lars in thrust.

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

You also need to consider availability of drive techs: a lot of the Gas Core drives are better than the Lars, the only Molten Core drive that you're guaranteed to unlock (and that's just from Gas Core Fission, not Advanced Fission Systems)

Huh? Cavity and Quartz are still worse. Vortex is better, true. Lightbulb is somewhat better. Everything else from Gas Core need roll a chance too.

I'll again point out that Burner is a guaranteed unlock.
Also, Pharos is decent. While it's not a guaranteed unlock, it's not that much worse than the Fission Spinner, so it's another chance to get a decent drive if you fail to unlock that.

[corisai]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

You're also overlooking the importance of Efficiency. In reality, using the Tin Droplet Radiator (125 tons per GW waste), those Specific Power numbers are actually:
Solid I: 71.25 t/GW
CS I: 34.125 t/GW
Molten I: 21.75 t/GW
Vapor I: 25.5 t/GW
Gas I: 22.5 t/GW

That's exactly what I'm trying to say! Vapor & Gas reactors are below usual efficiency gain. Following your own calculations - they worse then Molten I :)

Either Gas 1-2-3 should be combined into a single tech or they definitely need some buffs. Currently they exist only to bloat our projects & reactors lists.

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

I'll again point out that Burner is a guaranteed unlock.
Also, Pharos is decent. While it's not a guaranteed unlock, it's not that much worse than the Fission Spinner, so it's another chance to get a decent drive if you fail to unlock that.

True. But that also mean both Cavity and Quartz should be either removed from the game or their stats get reworked - they have worse stats that 100% unlock drive from previous tier :)

[Pawleus]

Whether or not Devs recently changed anything here (I don't remember it clear enough to determine) generally tech progression of the fission branch seems really bad. Especially the Pulsars as a subbranch of Solid Fission look like out of place here - in reality AFAIK the idea of the Pulsar Drive was updated to fusion from fission and I wonder whether or not Devs are aware of it.

Edit: For info about the Pulsar Fusion Drive you can go here: https://pulsarfusion.com/. Perhaps it's something entirely different than they have in mind for the Pulsars in-game but the ones in-game are too good by a large margin in comparison with their direct competition.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by corisai:

Following your own calculations - they worse then Molten I :)

With one of the best radiators in the game. If you're using something worse they fare better.

Also, the real reason why Advanced Pulsar is so dominant is because the combat thrust multiplier is free for some absurd reason. Getting extra thrust by dumping propellant in excess of what the drive normally is able to do should come with a corresponding loss of EV, because the drive doesn't have the power to increase it to the ideal operating temperature at that rate of flow.

[Pawleus]

I don't know whether or not the reason is absurd but yes, the combat thrust multiplier being free is the main culprit here in case of the Advanced Pulsar Drive.

[corisai]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

because the drive doesn't have the power to increase it to the ideal operating temperature at that rate of flow.

While I agree that Advanced Pulsar is broken OP - your idea is not entirely correct for nuclear & fusion reactors. Reactor power output is naturally limited by biological protection too - but it could be temporary overclocked (special drugs taken in advance will make it more or less safe for crew but they're pretty dangerous so could be used once in awhile).

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by corisai:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

because the drive doesn't have the power to increase it to the ideal operating temperature at that rate of flow.

While I agree that Advanced Pulsar is broken OP - your idea is not entirely correct for nuclear & fusion reactors. Reactor power output is naturally limited by biological protection too - but it could be temporary overclocked (special drugs taken in advance will make it more or less safe for crew but they're pretty dangerous so could be used once in awhile).

The problem with this is that the radiator size is determined by the reactor waste heat, and overclocking will naturally increase the waste heat, but the radiators made for the regular output of the reactor instead of 40x that have no trouble. And when the radiators are closed, the amount that heat sinks soak up is the amount that it produces at the stated statistics rather than a boosted amount.

[corisai]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

The problem with this is that the radiator size is determined by the reactor waste heat

1) No way ships are build without some small heatsinks just to make heat transfer system working.
2) Radiators are used for keeping comfort temperature that needed for weeks of space travel. Crew & ship components could endure temporary overheating to pretty dangerous levels (WWI tanks as example).
3) Radiators definitely have some spare capacity for case of maintenance (space ships are even more complex then modern navy ships - something will be always broken and being repaired).

As for me - it's plausible enough. And we already not a hard Sci-Fi as have magical lasers (unstoppable by armor at point blank instead of focal range issues of IRL lasers) and plasma (working 100% on fairy power)

UPD. I completed Terrawatt Gas Core Fission reactor III and not unlocked any of three drives from them. Sigh. Balance, lol >_>

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by corisai:

2) Radiators are used for keeping comfort temperature that needed for weeks of space travel. Crew & ship components could endure temporary overheating to pretty dangerous levels (WWI tanks as example).

When you run over your heat sink capacity with closed radiators, the ship takes damage. Running over your radiator capacity is effectively the same thing, but it causes no harm to ships without heat sink slots used, and doesn't fill the heat sink while radiators are open, never mind how quickly it would fill the heat sink with the reactor running at 40x.

3) Radiators definitely have some spare capacity for case of maintenance (space ships are even more complex then modern navy ships - something will be always broken and being repaired).

afaik radiator efficiency scales linearly with damage. So no.

As for me - it's plausible enough.

Eking out a low double-digit percentage increase might be plausible. Not 40x.

[corisai]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

afaik radiator efficiency scales linearly with damage. So no.

We don't have a routine maintenance failure :) So either our ships are manned by elves or maintenance & routine (non-combat) repairs are already included in default costs&mass.

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Eking out a low double-digit percentage increase might be plausible. Not 40x.

I 100% agree with you that Advanced Pulsar is broken OP. Pegasus more or less balanced (extreme mass of radiators & gamble) but Advanced Pulsar ...