Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I do have some thoughts about the columns/sorting:
- For anything that takes reactor energy to use (weapons, engines, and shield), I think that it would be useful to have a column for "benefit per power". So, for weapons "DPS per power", for engines "thrust per power", and for shields "shield per power". I did the math just for C-class shields, and there is some significant variance in power efficiency.
- For parts where the main downside is mass (cargo and fuel tank), a column for "benefit per mass" could be useful. Some of the smallest cargo holds are the most efficient "cargo per mass", although then you are limited by available space and structure. For fuel tanks, it mostly goes more efficient as you go up, but it looks like the "Hxx Atlas He3 Tank" series are less efficient than their contemporaries.
It has a "Mauler 106T Cannon" I could repalce it wit a "Vanguard: Autokanone Hellfire" (german text).
The weapon is cheap, has 18.89 hull damage and amazing 7.5 rate of fire.