Hi
As already written in discord my opinionis that the thruster cost increase is problematic. Especiall because it increases the gap from engine room fed drives to non ER setups. Depending on the setup engine rooms are worth up to around 30k in the pre patch version. The power feed function is so strong i would rate it at around 10k alone. I know it´s intentional to favor ER setups but fom balancing that feels bad. When calculating ER costs it should be calculated like that: 10k for saving doors, corridors and crew plus the realy quick recharge of especially boosters + half costs of a classic module setup.
Example values with old and new drive costs:
5 large and three standard drives. Old: boon around 22k. New: Boon around 35k
A powerful setup would be a module with 1 huge, 2 boosts, 4 large. Old: 29k New: 48k
Bidirectional orbiter setups: Old: 22,5k New: 35k
Unidirectional boost setup with 3 boosters and a standard drive: Old: around 20k New: around 30k.
For me the gap is too high. Even if i don´t rate the recharge speed benefit that´s maximum 5k lower. With the patch the gap is heavily increased while the opposite would be needed. That´s not balance, thats staight forward use ER or loose.
Suggestion: Increase Thusters by 50% and set ER´s to 20k
Result when i calculate only +5k for non drive benefits. We have also to keep in mind that ER setups suffer a bit more from critical hit zones. So we say that evens out with the recharge benefits.
Unidirectional setups: Very slight to no cost benefits from EN´s. Combat benefit not to use EN´s due to drives not focused in clusters. Here EN´s might get obsolete.
Bidirectional (many orbiters): around 10k saving.
Full module setup around 15k (up to 20k savings if huge drive loaded).
As benchmark: Two huge on an ER will be close to the same as you use three without ER. Add a third or side thrusters and the EN is a significant saving.
So ER´s will keep being a strong benefit and the higher drive cost effects are accieved but we will see more mixed setups so diversity.