How is it that an Imperial Courier can outclass a Clipper for shield?

[Hooplah]

Because the Clipper has a class 7 shield. Why is that point being ignored. It's absurd that a small ship utilising a class 3 or class 2 shield can completely outclass a larger ship using a larger shield.

I don't think it's a question of every ship having the best of everything, but you would expect the game to have some degree of consistency with regards to design when particular classes of modules can be utilised by the vessel - the class 7 shield in the case of a Clipper.

Another issue off topic is the mass lock factor. The game should base this on ship mass and nothing else. Another warped design by my logic. But hey ho.

The Clipper being a large ship has a mass so even the best shield can only do so much. What it adds is maneuverability and speed even with the worst targeting on the nacelles weapons. PvPers love this as a support ship in a wing taking out the FSD and shields with engineered missiles. I've used it in the past for mining, bounty hunting and other play styles knowing it's shield limitations. I made King in the Empire using this ship. I fly it with only 4A shields. It is not about the shields but how you fly it.

Learn to fly better versus doing the math thinking shields will protect you. I have an engineered Cobra Mk III easy to take out. It has rail guns and beams and can fire all day long without overheating. But if you rely on a Clipper's shields to protect you versus great piloting skills I and others can quickly send you to the rebuy screen. It is not what you fly but how well you fly it. Forget the shields. FLY the darn ship!

 

[Morbad]

So, no, I'm not buying the "bread + butter analogy" - compared to bigger ships with the same shield generator + boosters it still makes significantly less shield strength which invalidates the bread and butter analogy. If the shield were calculated around the energy density of the surface by mass or volume, akin to the film thickness of the butter, the larger and heavier ships listed above would have less shields than the clipper, not more.

Anyways, this topic is about the shield being terrible on a Clipper despite being capable of using a class 7. Why the hell are some ships like this? Lol.

Because the Clipper has a class 7 shield. Why is that point being ignored. It's absurd that a small ship utilising a class 3 or class 2 shield can completely outclass a larger ship using a larger shield.

The shield generator used doesn't say much about the shield emitters, which are integral to the ship itself.

Don't like the bread and butter analogy? Use an RF network, or armor, or anything else were effectiveness of something depends upon more than the raw power output or mass of that something.

Sure, you can put stronger amplifiers in a wireless router, but that doesn't mean it will provide a better signal than a weaker router with different antennae geometry.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Shields have maximum and optimal mass. The Clipper still got a pretty obvious behind the scenes shield Nerf, and the Courier a buff, but there is more to it than 7 shields on any ship give more value than 3 shields on any ship.

A Hauler with size 2 thrusters will go faster than a Corvette with 7 thrusters, similar scenario, the module size and its effect is relative to the weight of the ship.

Edit: MLF makes very little sense, I agree with you there!

There's more to it than that.

Shields have a base value, and the ratio between shield generator optimal mass and hull mass acts as a modifier to that value. If your hull mass is significantly below the optimal mass of your shields, you get a considerable bonus to shield strength, and strength declines as you go over the optimal mass towards the maximum mass.

Now, both the Clipper and the Courier can fit shields which give them the maximum base shield strength modifier of 1.7 (for a class A shield, AFAICT it's 50% additive bonus to the Optimal Strength, but I don't quite know what ratio you need to hit to reach that or what the equation is), but the Courier has a higher base shield value than the Clipper, 200 vs 180. So every multiplier added to them increases the gap in absolute strength between the two ships.

Meanwhile, there's a sort of general trend of base shield strength vs. hull mass that works out at about 2:1. For every 2t of hull mass ships in general get 1MJ of shield.

However, some ships are way off that trend. A few are massively above it (The Big Three, Courier, FDL and Mamba), a few are a little above (Vulture, both Kraits, Orca, and Python). Some are quite a bit below (Type 9, 10, Beluga, Dropship)

The Clipper is a little under trend for its hull size but not a lot, the Courier is a lot over curve and unlike the other small ship that's over curve the Vulture it can actually use all of that shield bonus because it has an oversized size 4 power plant.

 

[BackToTheMud]

How can a SRV hangar weight 6t, for the lightest one, and still fit into a size 2 slot? There're a lot of things that make no sense in this game, dude. (Same for all games.)

 

[VirtueXOI]

Still your C7 shield have much faster regen rate.
Clipper also is the most agile of "big ship"

I dont see why some smaller ship could not have be designed to get very strong shield while bigger ones are designed for other purpose :/.

I agree that clipper could see some buff tho it's a lovely ship.

 

[Treya]

[...] The courier has a power grid that is built to provide 230 MJ (or 200 MJ based on which site you are looking at) of energy to the shield module. This ship is fundamentally built to provide more energy to shields.

These base numbers are included on the ship stats in EDSY or Coriolis. These base numbers are a part of the ship's basic design and at this time I don't think they can be modified.

(I might be wrong about this. Someone correct me please, if so. The two site do not list the same values but I lean they can probably be computed if you use a module with 100% efficiency and an optimal hull size, or you know how that formula works. There must be a base amount of MJ supplied because the shield modules themselves do not output power, they just use it. [...]

EDSY only lists raw shield strength which is the value seen in-game in outfitting. As GloatingSwine correctly pointed out:

[...] Shields have a base value, and the ratio between shield generator optimal mass and hull mass acts as a modifier to that value. If your hull mass is significantly below the optimal mass of your shields, you get a considerable bonus to shield strength, and strength declines as you go over the optimal mass towards the maximum mass. [...]

Coriolis lists both the base value as well as raw and effective shield strength (EDSY almost certainly has the base values somewhere in it as well but afaict they are not visible). The base values are shown in the ship matrix on Coriolis next to the other base values for speed and armor. For the Courier this is 200Mj. Once a shield generator is installed this value is altered to produce raw shield strength, for the Couriers default 2E generator this leads to 230Mj.

I recently started a research project to find sources for the actual basics of how shields work (partially because the wiki page on shield gens is incomplete/incorrect) and the aforementioned was clarified/confirmed by a dev a long time ago in this thread (this particular post is linked as a source on the wiki but wasn't updated to the new format after the forum transition).

There are still a lot of puzzle pieces left to sort out but on the question at hand it seems that originally the base value for shields was derived from a ships dimensions/shape (citation needed ). During early development there where a lot of changes to the point where the original concept of shields bears almost no resemblance to what is actually found in the game today, so maybe those values where altered along the way for gameplay purposes (like it seems to be for the Anacondas miracle hull mass).
Even then though the Clipper is categorized as a large ship solely on its wing span exceeding the limitations for medium pads. Its characteristics however are in line with those of medium ships (much like the T7 which also is a medium ship in anything but size). The Clippers base shield value, while seemingly low for a large ship, actually compares rather well with the medium offerings of the Alliance and Federation. Still lower than those but not by as much as compared to the big 4.

 

[Vedmo]

Even then though the Clipper is categorized as a large ship solely on its wing span exceeding the limitations for medium pads. Its characteristics however are in line with those of medium ships (much like the T7 which also is a medium ship in anything but size). The Clippers base shield value, while seemingly low for a large ship, actually compares rather well with the medium offerings of the Alliance and Federation. Still lower than those but not by as much as compared to the big 4.

Ya, I wonder if part of the reason the Clipper got a lower hidden value is because it is essentially a medium ship with a 7 slot and size 7 shields would have made it an absurdly high value.

 

[Chrystoph]

Just another example of each ship having its own physics...

Frontier designs ships around lore and model animation, not around a universal norm of volume based design.

 

[Trollymctrollerson]

A size 7 bi weave and speed like it has are a powerful combination as it is. Compared to the federal medium ships, its MUCH faster and better shielded and also can equip a C7 SCB. Its not as much a case of the clipper being bad as it a case of the courier being an outlier. Dwelling on shields too much though doesn't tell the whole story. I'd argue the federal ships are all approximately equal to or slightly better than the clipper for combat despite weaker shields and also that viper iii and iv are equal to a courier for combat despite weaker shields.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

The shield generator used doesn't say much about the shield emitters, which are integral to the ship itself.

Don't like the bread and butter analogy? Use an RF network, or armor, or anything else were effectiveness of something depends upon more than the raw power output or mass of that something.

Sure, you can put stronger amplifiers in a wireless router, but that doesn't mean it will provide a better signal than a weaker router with different antennae geometry.

I understood the buttter/bread analogy, just as I understand this one, but they are both patronising, in that they explain or justify a bad game design decision. The shield emmiter geometry is emulated by the base shield value which is one of the factors in the equation that effects the efficacy of the shield generator measured by the shield strength. The figures I showed you comparing other ships with a 7a shield and 4x a boosters all unengineered shows just how anemic the shields on a clipper are and how out of whack it's base value must be. IRL Gutamaya would recall such a ship and install new design of shield emitter distribution, in game all we need is a galnet article and a tweak to base value. It's not like Gutamaya don't understand shield field effects, the cutter has "shields for days" and for its class so does the courier, but the clipper? I guess their shield guru was on vacation when they designed the distribution of its emmitters.

There's more to it than that.

Shields have a base value, and the ratio between shield generator optimal mass and hull mass acts as a modifier to that value. If your hull mass is significantly below the optimal mass of your shields, you get a considerable bonus to shield strength, and strength declines as you go over the optimal mass towards the maximum mass.

Now, both the Clipper and the Courier can fit shields which give them the maximum base shield strength modifier of 1.7 (for a class A shield, AFAICT it's 50% additive bonus to the Optimal Strength, but I don't quite know what ratio you need to hit to reach that or what the equation is), but the Courier has a higher base shield value than the Clipper, 200 vs 180. So every multiplier added to them increases the gap in absolute strength between the two ships.

Meanwhile, there's a sort of general trend of base shield strength vs. hull mass that works out at about 2:1. For every 2t of hull mass ships in general get 1MJ of shield.

However, some ships are way off that trend. A few are massively above it (The Big Three, Courier, FDL and Mamba), a few are a little above (Vulture, both Kraits, Orca, and Python). Some are quite a bit below (Type 9, 10, Beluga, Dropship)

The Clipper is a little under trend for its hull size but not a lot, the Courier is a lot over curve and unlike the other small ship that's over curve the Vulture it can actually use all of that shield bonus because it has an oversized size 4 power plant.

The clipper is well below par in terms of base modifier, it's a 400t hull, yet, when set up with a 7A shield generator, which is rated for 1,060t optimal mass, makes less than half the strength of shields than a 1,100t cutter with the same generator. You said the big three are a little above par and the two large lakons are a little below par, sticking to the "control shield" set up of all unengineered 7a genny and 4x A boosters, the 400t clipper makes 551mj, the 850t type-9 makes 554mj, the 1200t type-10 makes 634mj. The base modifier value on the clipper is so cripplingly unfair that even with its wonderful mix of relatively lightweight hull and large module bays, despite being less than 40% of the 7a shield generator's optimal value, which by your own words because it's "hull mass is significantly below the optimal mass of your shields, you get a considerable bonus to shield strength" yet it's resultant shields are less than that of ships whose hulls weigh up to triple its mass.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

A size 7 bi weave and speed like it has are a powerful combination as it is. Compared to the federal medium ships, its MUCH faster and better shielded and also can equip a C7 SCB. Its not as much a case of the clipper being bad as it a case of the courier being an outlier. Dwelling on shields too much though doesn't tell the whole story. I'd argue the federal ships are all approximately equal to or slightly better than the clipper for combat despite weaker shields and also that viper iii and iv are equal to a courier for combat despite weaker shields.

Anyship can run a biweave, and a 7c biweave takes longer to recharge than a 6c because the increased recharge rate is not as big an increase as capacity is, ergo to get from shields down to 50% where shields come back up, it takes longer with a 7c than a 6c, so I really don't see why you are bringing this into the conversation. It's standard(ish) PvP loadout to run massive SCB in largest slot and smaller shield genny in 2nd largest slot, for example I've got a plasma vulture with 2x 5a SCB's and a 4C biweave... The selection of equipment isn't what's being discussed here, its the efficacy of that equipment in context, and the clipper is massively shortchanged with regard to anything related to shields.

Any decision made or creed/ethos followed when loading out a clipper can be emulated on any other ship, but almost any other ship will still get more absolute shields for the same configuration, and that frankly sucks balls.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

EDSY only lists raw shield strength which is the value seen in-game in outfitting. As GloatingSwine correctly pointed out:

Coriolis lists both the base value as well as raw and effective shield strength (EDSY almost certainly has the base values somewhere in it as well but afaict they are not visible). The base values are shown in the ship matrix on Coriolis next to the other base values for speed and armor. For the Courier this is 200Mj. Once a shield generator is installed this value is altered to produce raw shield strength, for the Couriers default 2E generator this leads to 230Mj.

I recently started a research project to find sources for the actual basics of how shields work (partially because the wiki page on shield gens is incomplete/incorrect) and the aforementioned was clarified/confirmed by a dev a long time ago in this thread (this particular post is linked as a source on the wiki but wasn't updated to the new format after the forum transition).

There are still a lot of puzzle pieces left to sort out but on the question at hand it seems that originally the base value for shields was derived from a ships dimensions/shape (citation needed ). During early development there where a lot of changes to the point where the original concept of shields bears almost no resemblance to what is actually found in the game today, so maybe those values where altered along the way for gameplay purposes (like it seems to be for the Anacondas miracle hull mass).
Even then though the Clipper is categorized as a large ship solely on its wing span exceeding the limitations for medium pads. Its characteristics however are in line with those of medium ships (much like the T7 which also is a medium ship in anything but size). The Clippers base shield value, while seemingly low for a large ship, actually compares rather well with the medium offerings of the Alliance and Federation. Still lower than those but not by as much as compared to the big 4.

I'm genuinely curious where the base shield value is displayed on coriolis? By that I'm meaning the mythical factor that is used to calculate MJ rather than the absolute MJ value... I don't think the Base / shields MJ is the "factor" used in calculating MJ because the disparity between the cutters "base" and the Corvette's "base" doesn't correlate to mass & shield MJ?
Federal Corvette = 1,329MJ / 666 integrity / 900T hull / base 555
Imperial Cutter = 1,264MJ / 720 integrity / 1100T hull / base 600

Going back to clipper vs other ships, forget the shields on the fednecks three piggies, they are designed to be hull tanks, not only do they have higher integrity values than most other ships hulls, they are also blessed with higher hardness than any otherships, compounding their integrity values, whereas the imperial ships are shield tanks, designed to have a powerful field wrapped around a strikingly beautiful porcelain vase. Moving onto the alliance ships, chieftan crusader and challenger, because they only have class 6 slots, I'm going to change the benchmark shield configuration from 7A to 6A genny, plus the 4x A class shield boosters. Even this comparison shows the clipper being subjectively disadvantaged. Straight up off the bat, indisputable hard numbers:
(all ships with 6a shield genny + 4x A-class shield boosters)

Name / Hull mass / Shield Strength
Clipper - 400t - 465mj
Chieftan - 400t - 516mj
Challenger - 450t - 532mj
Crusader - 500t - 454mj

Despite being joint lightest on that table, the clipper has got the second weakest shields, only 11mj more than the absolute weakest shields, which belong to the 500t crusader, but that's to be expected, that the heavier the hull given that the weaker the shields are for any given genny used. But even with the weakest shields and highest mass from this bunch, the crusader is still subjectively better off as it has base armour of 540 compared to the clippers 486, and a larger set of hardpoints, offering more potential DPS and far better convergence.

 

[Morbad]

I understood the buttter/bread analogy, just as I understand this one, but they are both patronising, in that they explain or justify a bad game design decision.

The Clipper intentionally has a low base shield multiplier and I don't consider this to be a bad game design decision. To do otherwise would have made the ship unstoppable when it was introduced (and tied for fastest ship in the game). Even in the game's current state, the Clipper has more of a niche than most ships.

IRL Gutamaya would recall such a ship and install new design of shield emitter distribution

Tell that to all the wifi router/AP manufactuers that are unwilling to compromise on aesthetics by including external antennae!

Gutamaya clearly didn't make shield strength a priority with the Clipper. There are plenty of potential rationalizations for this and the assertion that the sheild strength of the ship is a sufficient issue to change the design, in ways that would surely warrant trade-offs elsewhere, doesn't jive with me.

Anyship can run a biweave

Not all benefit to the same degree.

and a 7c biweave takes longer to recharge than a 6c because the increased recharge rate is not as big an increase as capacity is, ergo to get from shields down to 50% where shields come back up, it takes longer with a 7c than a 6c

That's not true. On the Clipper, the recharge rate increase going from a class 6 to 7 is appreciably larger than the increase in capacity. Even if it was not, the Clipper has the mobility and durability to leverage the extra recharge rate well.

Also, a higher shield restoration threshold is not necessarily a bad thing. You want to balance the amount of time the shield is down with how long it's likely to be up after coming back and the 15 second post-collapse delay before rebuild even starts. Having a shield that comes back quickly doesn't do much good if it fails in one shot and spent half the time it was down not leveraging that regeneration rate.

Distributor draw is the main concern with a bi-weave that's larger than the distributor, but this can be mitigated with the low-draw special.

It's standard(ish) PvP loadout to run massive SCB in largest slot and smaller shield genny in 2nd largest slot

A hybrid clipper often doesn't have the upfront shielding to leverage a class 7 SCB well, and is a very easy target for feedback rails. If it's got enough upfront shielding with a class 6 shield to justify a class 7 SCB, it's not likely running bi-weaves.

I tend to omit SCBs on the clipper and just pack it full of armor and a big bi-weave.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I'm genuinely curious where the base shield value is displayed on coriolis?

Click the spaceport icon in the top left to get the big list o' stats. The value listed for shields there is the base shields.

The clipper is well below par in terms of base modifier, it's a 400t hull, yet, when set up with a 7A shield generator, which is rated for 1,060t optimal mass, makes less than half the strength of shields than a 1,100t cutter with the same generator. You said the big three are a little above par and the two large lakons are a little below par, sticking to the "control shield" set up of all unengineered 7a genny and 4x A boosters, the 400t clipper makes 551mj, the 850t type-9 makes 554mj, the 1200t type-10 makes 634mj. The base modifier value on the clipper is so cripplingly unfair that even with its wonderful mix of relatively lightweight hull and large module bays, despite being less than 40% of the 7a shield generator's optimal value, which by your own words because it's "hull mass is significantly below the optimal mass of your shields, you get a considerable bonus to shield strength" yet it's resultant shields are less than that of ships whose hulls weigh up to triple its mass.

Not really. Most other ships in the 400-500 weight class have about 200 base shields as well. Crusader, Chieftain, FAS, and Dropship all have 200, Challenger has 220. So at 180 base the Clipper really isn't that far out of line. It is below par, but not that far below. (Type 7 is down there at 155).

The thing to remember is that the shield generator is only a multiplier to the base shields, and the maximum multiplier comes at the point where your hull mass is 50% of the optimal mass or lower. That's the only actual contribution a bigger class of shield makes, a higher optimal mass. (AFAICT the bonus for being below optimal mass is linear but the penalty for being above it isn't)

The Clipper is at the point where it gets the maximum bonus from a size 7 shield, but because its base shields is only 180 that still means it has less than a ship with a higher base can get.

Meanwhile the Cutter has 600 base shields, so with the same size 7 shield it only takes a very slight penalty for being over the optimal hull mass so it gets 97% of its base value with a class C shield. Class C has no inherent bonus or penalty to optimal strength, you get an extra 10% more or less for going up or down shield classes from C, with Biweave being -10% and Prismatic being +50%. That's additive with the bonus/penalty from mass, so a Clipper with a 7A Prismatic will get 200% of its base shields before engineering/boosters, or 140% with a 7C Bi-Weave.

In a hypothetical space future where the Anaconda got a size 8 bay, it would actually get the same shields with a size 8 generator as it does with a size 7 because it already hits max bonus on the size 7.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

Tell that to all the wifi router/AP manufactuers that are unwilling to compromise on aesthetics by including external antennae!

Good designers "own" things like that, and in the case of WIFI routers, two of the smartest looking routers are the Asus ROG ones and the Netgear Nighthawk routers, both of which make their antennae part of the aesthetic:

Gutamaya clearly didn't make shield strength a priority with the Clipper. There are plenty of potential rationalizations for this and the assertion that the sheild strength of the ship is a sufficient issue to change the design, in ways that would surely warrant trade-offs elsewhere, doesn't jive with me.

Lets remember that shield emitters are a material that ostensibly fits in a CMDR's pocket, rather than the 20m geodesic sphere seen on starwars ships, and that the clipper is a spaceship with almost twice the "wingspan" of some of the biggest planes, such as the b52 stratofortress, compared to which it is also more than twice as long. So given the notional size of emitters, and the relative size of the clipper, I don't think it would be too much to ask the engineers to find other, more optimal, locations for them on the hull?

That's not true. On the Clipper, the recharge rate increase going from a class 6 to 7 is appreciably larger than the increase in capacity. Even if it was not, the Clipper has the mobility and durability to leverage the extra recharge rate well.

Check these two links out:
https://s.orbis.zone/bx7e - Clipper with 7c biweave and 4x 0A boosters - Recovery 2:06 / Recharge 1:50
https://s.orbis.zone/bx7o - Clipper with 6c biweave and 4x 0A boosters - Recovery 1:41 / Recharge 1:25

Also, a higher shield restoration threshold is not necessarily a bad thing. You want to balance the amount of time the shield is down with how long it's likely to be up after coming back and the 15 second post-collapse delay before rebuild even starts. Having a shield that comes back quickly doesn't do much good if it fails in one shot and spent half the time it was down not leveraging that regeneration rate.

Distributor draw is the main concern with a bi-weave that's larger than the distributor, but this can be mitigated with the low-draw special.

I know what you are meaning, the way I approach that is I tend to run fast charge special effect on my bi-weaves, and resistance mods for the engineering on the genny and boosters to try and get the recharge time as short as possible. Although having just played about in Coriolis, I'm now aware that the distributor is the largest single factor on shield generation rates, so in my "real" builds, still pixel spaceships but more real than the scratchpad builds I'm working off in this thread, I'm possibly going to move from charge enhanced distributor with super conduits, to system focussed with superconduits as that configuration took a chunk off the recovery/recharge times.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I'm genuinely curious where the base shield value is displayed on coriolis?

Front Page:

But not shown on the ship page...

 

[GloatingSwine]

Check these two links out:
https://s.orbis.zone/bx7e - Clipper with 7c biweave and 4x 0A boosters - Recovery 2:06 / Recharge 1:50
https://s.orbis.zone/bx7o - Clipper with 6c biweave and 4x 0A boosters - Recovery 1:41 / Recharge 1:25

... With class E distributors and even pips.

Coriolis accounts for you draining and using the trickle charge rate of your distributor, wherever the pips are.

Flip those to 6A distros and you get the 7C recovery/recharge being 1:23/1:07 and the 6C being 1:06/0:57. At this point the 7C is getting a faster overall rate (because the shields are 23% stronger but the recharge is only 17% longer, so the actual rate of recharge is consistently better even accounting for drained distro)

Put a pip to systems and it goes to 59/51 for the 7C and 48/57 for the 6C. At that point the 7C is actually recharging in less time as well as having more strength (And neither is able to drain the distro unbroken)

 

[Morbad]

Good designers "own" things like that, and in the case of WIFI routers, two of the smartest looking routers are the Asus ROG ones and the Netgear Nighthawk routers, both of which make their antennae part of the aesthetic

Aesthetics are subjective, but what's not is that small, non-removable antennae, are not optimal for actual wi-fi coverage.

Lets remember that shield emitters are a material that ostensibly fits in a CMDR's pocket, rather than the 20m geodesic sphere seen on starwars ships, and that the clipper is a spaceship with almost twice the "wingspan" of some of the biggest planes, such as the b52 stratofortress, compared to which it is also more than twice as long. So given the notional size of emitters, and the relative size of the clipper, I don't think it would be too much to ask the engineers to find other, more optimal, locations for them on the hull?

Type/quality of emitter, hull shape, power routing considerations, could also be factors, in addition to placement.

The Clipper is also a relatively cheap ship and cost/target market could well be an in-setting explanation for it's relatively anemic shield emitter system.

Check these two links out:
https://s.orbis.zone/bx7e - Clipper with 7c biweave and 4x 0A boosters - Recovery 2:06 / Recharge 1:50
https://s.orbis.zone/bx7o - Clipper with 6c biweave and 4x 0A boosters - Recovery 1:41 / Recharge 1:25

Those are completely distributor limited loadouts and not representative of something anyone would actually use.

I know what you are meaning, the way I approach that is I tend to run fast charge special effect on my bi-weaves, and resistance mods for the engineering on the genny and boosters to try and get the recharge time as short as possible. Although having just played about in Coriolis, I'm now aware that the distributor is the largest single factor on shield generation rates, so in my "real" builds, still pixel spaceships but more real than the scratchpad builds I'm working off in this thread, I'm possibly going to move from charge enhanced distributor with super conduits, to system focussed with superconduits as that configuration took a chunk off the recovery/recharge times.

Charge enhanced with super conduits is still vastly superior to system enhanced for any ship that will actually see combat. Even if you have very low WEP draw weapons, you compromise your boost interval for marginal gains. Much better off replacing fast charge on the shield generator with low-draw.

This is the last clipper loadout I used:

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous

s.orbis.zone

 

[Rat Catcher]

Put a pip to systems and it goes to 59/51 for the 7C and 48/57 for the 6C.

I've just learned something new about Coriolis - thanks

 

[GloatingSwine]

Much better off replacing fast charge on the shield generator with low-draw.

Lo-draw only seems to have the advantage at 2 or less pips in systems. Even broken it only makes 1 second difference otherwise, for (on your build) about 7-10 second longer recharge unbroken).