Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Far future of the ITU and DTC  (Read 3617 times)

TheEndstoneGolem

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Far future of the ITU and DTC
« on: March 28, 2017, 04:23:58 AM »

Hey guys! :)

I posted in the ITU and DTC topic started by Techhead in this section a few days ago, but I realised that what I was saying did not relate to what he was asking/suggesting.

In regards to the ITU and DTC problem, people feel that the DTC is a bit pointless because the ITU is better, the only difference being you have to unlock the ITU and that it can be applied to all hull sizes. I feel as though they should both be changed.

Anything involving the word 'targetting' to me should involve an increase in accuracy, not an increase in range (Integrated TARGETTING Unit and Dedicated TARGETTING Core).

The changes that I am suggesting are as follows:
-DTC and ITU both have their range bonuses removed and the DTC is no longer a hullmod.
-The DTC becomes a toggle on/off ship system that generates soft flux (similar to shield flux levels) and increases PD target leading/increases accuracy (more than the ITU).
-The ITU remains as a hullmod and instead provides a target leading facility/increases accuracy (less than the DTC).
-Expanded Propellant Magazines (EPMs) are added as a hullmod. These provide a range boost to ballistic weapons, the idea being that the ship's ballistic weapons can now use more propellant per shot and thus fire projectiles further before they degrade/detonate.
-Remapped Flux Conduits (RFCs) are added as a hullmod. Provides a range boost to energy weapons, the idea being that there can be increased power delivery to energy weapons from the ships reactor(s).

Problems with these suggestions:
-RFCs seems a bit ropey as ballistic weapons also generate flux (obviously this can be worked around with creative thinking).
-This would push ships with mixtures of slot types out of competition as they would only be able to range boost one of their weapon types.
-Ships such as the Onslaught with EPMs could become OP because they're all ballistic weaponry (not sure about the TPCs), same goes for ships with mainly energy weaponry.
-For weapons such as the railgun, EPMs wouldnt make sense, as a railgun doesn't use a propellant, it uses electromagnetism to propel a magnetic projectile forward. The same goes for AM blastes (I think?).
-I also feel that people think that accuracy boosting is pointless in larger ships fights, as they're hard to miss!

NOTE: I say that the DTC should become a hullmod as a Core sounds like something built very deep into a ship when it's being constructed.
The opposite is true for the ITU, a Unit sounds like a modular add on to ships. Also I figured that the DTC provides a bigger range bonus to weapons that the ITU because it generates flux, thus during combat you can have higher range at the expense of generating more flux.

Would love your guys' input! :D
Logged
Using an Astral with 6 Khopesh wings coz I'm that basic B)

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2017, 01:52:01 PM »

to be honest, it seems to me you're approaching this from the wrong direction, so to speak. whether something "makes sense" is much less important than how it affects gameplay and balance. the reason the DTC & ITU hullmods exist is not that there should be something with those names in the game, and hullmods were the best fit; they exist because there should be hullmods with their effects, and those were two names that are at least kinda fitting (i hope this explanation makes sense ^^).

splitting the range hullmods into two new ones just because of the name, even though you already mentioned several gameplay issues this would intruduce, would not be an improvement.


and sidenote: conceptually, the limited range of projectile weapons in Starsector is due to inaccuracy. projectiles don't actually just vanish or slow down in the vacuum of space, but it's a gameplay/balance necessity.
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2017, 03:18:20 PM »

and sidenote: conceptually, the limited range of projectile weapons in Starsector is due to inaccuracy. projectiles don't actually just vanish or slow down in the vacuum of space, but it's a gameplay/balance necessity.

Agreed, it's not that the bullet disappears from the universe after a given time. It's just that, after a certain distance, no tracking computer or barrel rifling is accurate enough to even be remotely effective at that range. The other day I referred to Starsector as a "bullet hell" game analogue, which is only partially correct, but I definitely don't want to see the Starsector where bullets have infinite range...

... Friendly missiles that run out of fuel just as they're pointing at me are bad enough. XD
Logged

cjuicy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Figuring out how the hell to wear heels (She/it)
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2017, 04:40:52 PM »

I got killed by a friendly Pilum swarm once. I was lucky that it was a bounty mission, and the Elder Orb was the mod ship upgrade to mine.
Logged
It's been a long time, but I still love ya!

- Pfp done by Sleepyfish!

TheEndstoneGolem

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2017, 01:01:27 AM »

I can't believe I overlooked this ::), I'm taking maths and sciences for my A-Levels! I continually forget that the game is a 3D world played in a 2D perspective. Having thought about it more what you're saying makes sense, in space you have to stabilize projectiles in two axes, not just the one the game portrays to the player (they're already stabilised in the third). As the projectiles travel further, they are also inaccurate in terms of how far above and how far below the map they go, thus they 'dissapear' as they travel out of or into your screen. I understand that projectiles don't dissappear or slow down (they're in vacuum, there's nothing to slow them down!). My reasoning was that the high speeds they are propelled at tear them apart or they're intentionally made to degrade to prevent them from travelling further and hitting innocent civilian ships.
Now that you've made me think (thank you :P) I guess the ITU and DTC do make sense. However, I still stand by what I'm saying, make the DTC a hullmod built into some ships and have it generate flux whilst it's active/on (I have a feeling this is a ship system already?).

Also seeing as we don't know what skills and aptitudes will be in 0.8a, the ITU would be a cool way to allow players to still obtain a target leading pip facility, if it's not available in 0.8a in the same way as it is now.

P.S. I do think it is important that things 'make sense' in this game (this one does, I just wasn't thinking!). The game is still based in the human universe after all! :D
Logged
Using an Astral with 6 Khopesh wings coz I'm that basic B)

TheEndstoneGolem

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2017, 01:02:29 AM »

I got killed by a friendly Pilum swarm once. I was lucky that it was a bounty mission, and the Elder Orb was the mod ship upgrade to mine.

That must've been a ridiculous amount of Pilums! :o
Logged
Using an Astral with 6 Khopesh wings coz I'm that basic B)

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2017, 01:37:41 AM »

I got killed by a friendly Pilum swarm once. I was lucky that it was a bounty mission, and the Elder Orb was the mod ship upgrade to mine.

That must've been a ridiculous amount of Pilums! :o

Probably all came from a single Vigilance. XD
Logged

cjuicy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Figuring out how the hell to wear heels (She/it)
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2017, 03:55:38 PM »

One plus the Tiandong tarsus mod.
Logged
It's been a long time, but I still love ya!

- Pfp done by Sleepyfish!

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2017, 04:01:09 PM »

One plus the Tiandong tarsus mod.

XD Oh my goodness that thing has so many missiles... We really do need a small (frigate? destroyer?) missile boat like that for the vanilla game. The Vigilance can only punch so hard with a single medium mount.
Logged

Toxcity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2017, 06:36:47 PM »

One plus the Tiandong tarsus mod.

XD Oh my goodness that thing has so many missiles... We really do need a small (frigate? destroyer?) missile boat like that for the vanilla game. The Vigilance can only punch so hard with a single medium mount.

Buffalo Mark 2. It isn't great, but it can provide good missile support if protected.
Logged

AxleMC131

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Amateur World-Builder
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2017, 06:51:49 PM »

One plus the Tiandong tarsus mod.

XD Oh my goodness that thing has so many missiles... We really do need a small (frigate? destroyer?) missile boat like that for the vanilla game. The Vigilance can only punch so hard with a single medium mount.

Buffalo Mark 2. It isn't great, but it can provide good missile support if protected.

... Do not ask me how I forgot about the Buffalo MkII. XD Sometimes my mind just fails me...
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2017, 08:17:17 AM »

P.S. I do think it is important that things 'make sense' in this game (this one does, I just wasn't thinking!). The game is still based in the human universe after all! :D
it's nice when things "make sense", sure. more in the sense of being intuitive or immersive than actually realistic, but yeah.

but it shouldn't be the primary driving factor behind gameplay design. otherwise you'll end up with a game that makes a whole lot of sense but is riddled with balance problems or just simply isn't fun to play.


... Do not ask me how I forgot about the Buffalo MkII. XD Sometimes my mind just fails me...
probably because it's just really not a good option in the current version. it has the durability of a frigate, no shield, poor mobility, and yet it costs not much less than an Enforcer.

hopefully in 0.8, using a few Buffalo MK.II in a player fleet will become worthwhile, with the combination of its cost being reduced to frigate level, and the ability to specialize into cheap ship recovery. fighting pirates in early- to mid-game should provide a steady supply of further degraded but also even cheaper Buffalo MK.II that don't need to survive for long in order to be worth getting and outfitting them.
Logged

TheEndstoneGolem

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Far future of the ITU and DTC
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2017, 09:17:57 AM »

P.S. I do think it is important that things 'make sense' in this game (this one does, I just wasn't thinking!). The game is still based in the human universe after all! :D
it's nice when things "make sense", sure. more in the sense of being intuitive or immersive than actually realistic

For me, something being intuitive usually means that it's also realistic. I completely understand what you're saying, it's just nice in a very immersive RPG like this for everything to fit in - for nerds it just makes the game more fun!!
Logged
Using an Astral with 6 Khopesh wings coz I'm that basic B)