Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gothars]

However, doing so reduces max CR, in the same way that having too few crew does. I'd say the effect should grow exponentially.

Advantages:
- more build flexibility, allows to build custom short-duration elite ships.
- avoid cases were you just lack like two OP to finish the custom build you want.
- opens the door for removable OP modifiers (respeccing, officer fleet skills).

[Alex]

Thought about this a couple of times, actually! Mostly in the context of removable OP modifiers, as well.

I think there's a solid chance it would skew the gameplay and what's optimal towards OP-heavy builds, wherever the sweet spot in the CR reduction is. And then there are things like Hardened Subsystems, where it gets really weird, since those would almost *give* you OP. +% max CR skills effectively become +OP skills, as well.

Thought about having it increase deployment costs instead, but that gets weird too. For example, D-mods could become something 100% beneficial - e.g. you've got compromised armor, but there'd likely be cases where you could get Heavy Armor by going over OP, and fully negate the d-mod while still having a lower deployment cost.

Basically, it feels like there's a fundamental problem with the idea. If we're trying to increase the pool of points that make the ship better by making the ship worse, there are going to be cases where it's no-brainer, i.e. the thing you can buy with the points outmatches the "worse" part. I think for a lot of ships it would result in a small number of clearly-optimal over-OP loadouts.

Perhaps it could be made to work, though. Some tweaks to Hardened Subsystems and skills and how it works so that nothing can *directly* counter the downside, and a sufficiently high magnitude downside... but it's still a solution looking for a problem, isn't it? If removable OP modifiers were a thing, then sure, it'd make sense to look at how to handle it, but absent that?

[nomadic_leader]

Well, this would be in keeping with the way SS lets you overload on everything else-- but the penalties there are so steep as to make it almost always pointless. If it's going to be always pointless why even have it? I worry that this might also destroy distinctions between different ships to a great degree.

- opens the door for removable OP modifiers (respeccing, officer fleet skills).

Well, this shouldn't be a reason for it, since that isn't actually stopping removable OP modifiers. There are other  solutions like having over-OP ships be automatically stripped down to their new OP limit..

[SafariJohn]

Advantages:
- allows to build custom short-duration elite ships.

I think you'd want to reduce peak time directly to create short-duration ships rather than reduce CR, but I think a relation between being over OP and having reduced peak time would probably be too non-obvious.

[xenoargh]

I like this idea.

I'd suggest that the cost be:

(MAX_CR * OP_Over / OP_Max) - Math.max(0, OP_Over - OP_Max)

That would neatly support "light builds" and be reasonably punishing to "heavy builds", imo.

[xenoargh]

Alex:  I think that the, "if I could scrounge just a few more OP this build is viable" issue is always present for the power gamers.  A lot of what I see in the very early version of the ship-analysis is that there are a bunch of Hulls that are probably in need of adjustments (early days on this though).

[Megas]

If all that did was lower max OP, then it would make Fleet Logistics 3 very powerful (or more powerful than it already is), perhaps better than Loadout Design 3 (but nothing beats Electronic Warfare 1.)  I would certainly abuse it with many ships.  As long as maximum CR is greater than a certain threshold, I would not care about the max CR penalty due to peak performance.

[Gothars]

I think for a lot of ships it would result in a small number of clearly-optimal over-OP loadouts.

Well, there will always be optimal builds, no? At least optimal for some role. Why would it be a bad thing if some of them go slightly over OP? Figuring out these builds is part of the fun, if you ask me

But to control it, you could use a soft barrier where going over max OP at all is costly, but then the costs only increase slowly for further OP (at first, increasing exponentially). That would make it more into a binary option and prevent min-maxing somewhat.

but it's still a solution looking for a problem, isn't it? If removable OP modifiers were a thing, then sure, it'd make sense to look at how to handle it, but absent that?

Kinda Hope for those to become a ting eventually

[Schwartz]

It's an interesting idea. I would prefer this to hullmods that mess with peak time. Hardened Subsystems is cool but the same effect could be had by having spare OP in your loadout and getting some extra time from that. And well, SO is a weird aggregate of effects where I'd much prefer a general 'overtuned' mechanic such as reduced time for a bit more OP. CR though.. CR is a different beast. You get a bit of shield efficiency, speed, auto-aim accuracy among other things. That's no good if all you have to pay is some spare OP. Sacrifice of OP should not turn into better performance all-around, that's too easy of a choice.

Even for just peak time, there's going to be a sweet spot where the player can leverage the extra power to win within the shorter operating time. And if we're talking about AI fleets here, one is a straight downgrade, the other an upgrade. AI doesn't know the concept of war of attrition, and it generally doesn't have to. The AI tends to either win by numbers or to get killed in an even fight. Peak time for the AI doesn't matter so much because the player doesn't concern himself with it. Very rare that he'll lose narrowly by running out of time. And unless the circumstances are already screwy - like battle-worn ships trying to catch a limping fleet - AI usually dies before it spends its operating time.

[Serenitis]

Sort of been done already, albeit rather harshly.
SWP has the Maximized Ordnance hullmod which gives extra OP to a ship when fitted.
Harsh because the tradeoff for using it is so unattractive that it never gets used. (At least in my games.)


For hullmods it could be possible to trade off a ships stats for extra OP to make it more expensive to operate but not making it a horribly frustrating experience for the player.
Such as:

• Decreasing it's cargo/fuel capacity.
• Increasing it's crew requirement.
• Decreasing it's crew capacity. (So you must have other ships to carry crew for it.)
• Increasing it's maintenance and/or recovery costs.
• Increasing it's fleet deployment cost.

And in return the mods could:

• Just give a flat amount of OP.
• Reduce OP costs for a specific size or type weapon.
• Reduce OP costs for a specific type of other hullmods.

Example Hullmods

Spoiler

Optimised Carrier Systems
Decreases the OP cost for fighter LPCs.
Increases the ship crew requirement
Increases maint. cost.
Increases deploy cost.

Superconductive Fluxguides
Decreases OP cost for energy weapons.
Decreases cargo and fuel capacity by x%.
Decreases turret rotation speed by y%.

Missile Ordnance Specialisation
Decreases OP cost for missiles.
Adds x% or +1 to maximum ammuntition count (whichever is greater).
Decreases cargo and fuel capacity by x%.
Decreases ship speed and acceleration by y%.

Small Arms Specialisation
Decreases OP cost for small mount weapons.
Increases maint. cost.
Increases recovery cost.

Defence Sepecialisation
Decreases OP cost for weapons tagged with "point defence".
Decreases flux dissipation rate by x%.

Engine Optimisation
Decreases OP cost for hullmods related to engines.
Increases fuel consumption by x%.

Efficient Organisation
Adds x OP.
Increases maint. cost.
Increases recovery cost.

[close]

Alternately, you could make these "role abilities" into built-in mods for all the ships.
And then you could either have them appear randomly (but quite rarely) on generated ships, and/or have the ability for the player to pay a friendly port to "convert" ships to that spec.
These various mods would be either mutually exculsive (ie: one role mod per ship), or subject diminishing returns for fitting more than one.

But what do I know? I'm just a dumb hors.

[Morbo513]

It'd be cool if yeah, you could decide to strip out fuel tanks, cargo holds, superfluous crew quarters, maybe even active systems(!) to gain extra OP, at the cost of reduced peak time. So to make them truly viable, you'd need an equal weight of logistics or logistics-capable ships. The way I envision it is I have a massive furball of over-OP frigates and destroyers, with a couple normal cruisers, capitals and a tanker or two to pick up the logistical slack.
Because the smaller ships are over-OP, they can punch above their weight, but need to get their kills in quicker than otherwise. Could make it even more punishing and have such modifications reduce hull integrity, increase EMP vulnerability and weapon repair timers (More flux conduits and magazines and such to be blown up) and decrease likelihood of recoverability. Fully over-OP ships would essentially be glass cannons that have to go balls-to-the-wall.
My main concern is how AI would be adapted; whether over-OP ships would be somewhat common in their fleets or if they'd just get steamrolled by players using them.
Another way of going about it could be for every OP over maximum, flux generation is increased by a certain percentage. So you can add that bigger missile rack, but flux efficiency is degraded.

[Sooner535]

How about another +% OP skill in the tree? Maybe located in industry or leadership (and at T3 skill again) so you would have to invest 12 levels in total? Seems like a pretty big trade off to me and may be balanced? Idk

[Morbo513]

How about another +% OP skill in the tree? Maybe located in industry or leadership (and at T3 skill again) so you would have to invest 12 levels in total? Seems like a pretty big trade off to me and may be balanced? Idk

Optimised loadouts or whatever the skill's called is already extremely powerful, since as far as I can tell, no other fleets use it. If it were up to me, any opportunity for the player to increase/go over their ships' OP limits should also be available to, and leveraged by AI, or the player's just made too powerful.
Those OP increases should also come with drawbacks. The current skill has pretty much none outside of having to balance the additional firepower v flux the extra OP affords you. Having to sacrifice a ship's capabilities in one area, for example fuel capacity, to gain say 3% extra OP would be acceptable imo - even though it doesn't translate to any drawback in combat, it adds logistical and financial strain.

[Sooner535]

But yet no other skill has a drawback, imo the biggest drawback would be the huge amount of points you would have to invest in non combat abilities (and even then they don't give you things like more fuel per scavenge or less supply upkeep per day (both being hugely helpful as it can make bigger fleets still profit from things like derelicts and surveys). I do agree however the AI should get access to all the skills the player can access, but a drawback on a skill would make me very unlikely to grab said skill. (When you think about it having 10% more OP wouldn't be a huge thing, unless it also gave more flux vents or capacitors (which I don't think it should)). I think the 2 skills should look like this:

Tech skill:
T1: +10% flux capacitors
T2: +10% flux vents
T3: +10% OP

Industry skill:
T1: -10% cost to restore hulls
T2: +10% hull(or)armor rating (this could also give armor only ships a bit of a buff since they are nowhere near as good as ships with good shielding)
T3: +10% OP

Sinve you cannot overload on caps/vents you have a "soft cap" of how much stuff you can put on your ship.

[Megas]

Loadout Design 3 is extremely powerful, worth it for one junk perk (Loadout Design 1) and another perk that is junk (Loadout Design 2) without the extra OP from Loadout Design 3.  Loadout Design 3 is so good that if enemy ECM was not common enough, it would be the #1 perk.  Electronic Warfare may be #1 perk, but Loadout Design 3 is a very close #2 perk.  Loadout Design 3 and Electronic Warfare 1 only for Technology may be pricey, but they are so worth it.  In case of Loadout Design 3, the extra OP enables things not possible with base OP.  In particular, Converted Hangar for most cruisers and capitals becomes viable or effective.  Without Loadout Design 3, support for Converted Hangar would cost too much.

OP budget is already very tight without Loadout Design 3, meaning it is too hard to take advantage of the Loadout Design 1 or 2 without Loadout Design 3.  Loadout Design 1 is junk; normal max capacitors is already more than enough.  Loadout Design 2 for super-max vents is nice, but only if I have leftover OP, which does not happen without Loadout Design 3.