Ship Builds & Load Outs What is the niche of C rated internals?

Star-Hunter

S
Even though there is a clear progression in price and primary parameter while going up the line of E->A ratings, every rating has its niche.

Internals with different ratings are balanced(design compromises preferring different parameters) differently:

Taking the example of a power plant (but also valid for the others):
E - cheapest, but bad at everything
D- Lightest
C - ????
B - Armoured but also the heaviest
A - Most powerful, also best heat management

So far i heavent been able to determine the the role of the C rated components, or even if they have any.

It would be interesting to make the C rated ones to have the best heat management (instead of A).
 

Holven

Holven
I'd say C is Bang for Buck. It is a vast improvement over E and D, if it uses a resource (FSD use fuel), it will be the cheapest per maximum distance. So.. Affordable performance without extra weight. All rounder.

Edit: Sorry, that should be cheapest per percentage of maximum distance.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that C shields take a little less power per percent to recharge.
 
Last edited:

Richard Bentley

Richard Bentley
I think of it as C for compromise.
It's the "normal" weight - not the lightweight D option, nor the heavyweight B, just the same as E and A, but without the increased performance of an A nor the drawbacks of the budget-range E.
It represents (to me) a normal value of performance and does this reasonably efficiently, at a moderate cost.
 

Star-Hunter

S
Richard Bentley said:
I think of it as C for compromise.
It's the "normal" weight - not the lightweight D option, nor the heavyweight B, just the same as E and A, but without the increased performance of an A nor the drawbacks of the budget-range E.
It represents (to me) a normal value of performance and does this reasonably efficiently, at a moderate cost.
Click to expand...


but this makes it really boring, and if you have money for A than you always upgrade. Both D and B have have advantages over A even if money is not a concern.

Thats why I think C should be made the most Fuel/Heat efficient. That would make outfitting even more interesting. A would still be the best Power-to-weight/class but there are many ships that have overheating problems that could use it. If a C rated FSD would have the best fuel/heat efficiency, it could be an interesting choice for explorers. Having a C rated FSD and PP would mean that you dont need to refuel so often and generate less heat when fuel scooping.

Or being fully C rated would mean silent running and therefore smuggling would be much easier.
 

Ben Ryder

Ben Ryder
C are simply the best value for money and what that chap says about being good for smuggling is quite true
 
Last edited:

Star-Hunter

S
Ben Ryder said:
Did someone say that B grade are armoured or tougher than the rest?
Click to expand...


i dont know if they are more armoured or they have more health. but when i was piloting a Federal dropship, i experimented with different rated PPs (the FD has awesome hull armour but one of the weakest PP in game).

I found B rated components to be significantly more durable then the others. where the others were pretty much the same (E rated were slightly weaker then the rest but not by much).

Obviously this is just a subjective evaluation, but the difference felt like + 30-40 %. So im pretty confident
 

Talwin

Talwin
Also taking into account the power plant example. Say I have a size 3 engine compartment, both the E/D 3 class powerplants also offer less power than the A2 powerplant. When getting to the C3, does it offer equal or slightly more power than the A2 but at a cheaper price but will have more mass?

- - - Updated - - -

I've just checked and the class 3 power plants offer more power than the A class pp of the previous size/class. However they have more mass but cost less, so it's a trade off really.
 

Sathayorn

S
If you need to call C grade something, why not "Efficient"? Check out sensor power draw, or, as previously mentioned, FSD fuel consumption. I always go from C to A because mass affects speed and maneuverability just as much as jump range.
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
B = beefy

On ships like the Asp, a B rated PP is essential in combat as anything else is too weak when shields go down and you start running.
 

Star-Hunter

S
Sathayorn said:
If you need to call C grade something, why not "Efficient"? Check out sensor power draw, or, as previously mentioned, FSD fuel consumption. I always go from C to A because mass affects speed and maneuverability just as much as jump range.
Click to expand...

iknow, thats why im saying that c should have the best heat efficiency too.

because, being more efficient means that it has least amount of losses in the form of heat generated.


And you yourself are stating that A is always better than C. Which is the whole point of this thread.
 

fantasmic

fantasmic
Star-Hunter said:
iknow, thats why im saying that c should have the best heat efficiency too.

because, being more efficient means that it has least amount of losses in the form of heat generated.


And you yourself are stating that A is always better than C. Which is the whole point of this thread.
Click to expand...

I think he means cost efficient. Nothing beats C rated internals for just getting the job done with moderate stats across the board. If we wanted to tweak the game to give them a niche I would reccomend "reliability" before taking away the heat efficiency of advanced parts. After all, efficient cooling for even an internal combustion engine here on earth can get technical and pricey. Make them more durable against normal degredation, maybe slightly above average under fire if you must (a real-world advantage of simplicity), and cheaper to repair. Maybe even have them repair more fully in the field.

I think C equipment already does it's job well, but if I were going to suggest a change, that would be where I would go with things.

Just increasing their resistance to degredation might make it so that explorers have a reason to think about the setup of their ships instead of the current standard of "all D with A fsd" if shorter jumps with C internals might let you stay in the field 10~20% longer. Maybe, maybe not, but it's a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom