Print

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

[Dreyven]

Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want.  Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost?  I didn't know the docks could be more worthless.  
It's much harder to build up a competent fleet now due to weapon loss from board/surrendering.

i think that's working as intended, he wanted the process of aquiring weapons be a more meaningfull process

Yeah, Augmented engines being debuffed makes it pretty useless. It does not matter whether it's on large or small ships, it already eats a chunk out of flux dissipation or weapons

I cannot think of any ship that would benefit at the cost. Onslaught, Paragon, Medusa... It just turns a viable strategy into a bad strategy.

Problem is that it wasn't "viable" before...
it was too powerfull of a hull mod, gotta balance somewhere... increasing the OP cost would've caused similiar issues
same with the advanced optics... it's way too cheap/powerfull for the amount of range it provides compared to the targetting AI

also it's "only" 25% off the base flux venting... a hound for example only suffers a 25 flux dissipation penalty

[Nori]

Finally got to play yesterday. Really like the changes! I started off with a vigilance frigate (first time flying one actually) and it was pretty interesting.. It had a medium Harpoon MRM which is totally awesome!

So I gotta say, the hounds are a pain in the butt now! But I like it. They actually take a bit of work to kill... Plus the Talons actually survive more than 20 seconds now, it is great. Really like the refitting changes and that the ships in station come with no weapons. Good changes all around!

[j01]

You seem to be under the impression that endgame == large fleets - which is, certainly, one possibility (as long as you're not one of those crazy people who's gathered over 200 points of ships...), but has been stated by the devs that it's not meant to be the only option; that a captain of a single elite vessel (plus escorts) is also a perfectly viable endgame.

So yes, I'm exactly considering smaller fleet sizes, and the player controlled ship, because to me, that's what's important in this game; if I'm flying one paragon out of 12, something has gone wrong.  I'm not really interested in playing the game as just another RTS; I don't like that sort of game.

I did make the assumption that you merely weren't considering the AI's handle on ship balance because you hadn't gotten very far. My mistake. I also often enjoy single-ship play, which I hope remains viable in the campaign as development progresses.

Still, my point remains. You weren't considering AI ship control, which is a very large part of the game that cannot be ignored, even if you restrict yourself to a single ship.

Kinetic damage trumps high tech ships that rely on shields, while energy weapons cannot compare to the range and power of their ballistic counterparts, all other things being equal.

[Iscariot]

Hull mods:

• Augmented Engines: 25% flux dissipation penalty
• Integrated Targeting Unit: reduced cost, range bonus is 10/20/35/50%, depending on hull size
• Advanced Optics: also reduces turret turn rate by 50%
• Insulated Engine Assembly: also increases hull integrity by 10%
• Armored Weapon Emplacements: also increases ship's armor rating by 10%
• Resistant Flux Condutis: also increases flux dissipation by 10%

If a mod has a downside it should be cheaper, augmented engines are already too expensive for most ships and I feel like this will just make it useless.  Same goes with optics, your point defenses are now useless.  A lot of mods are like this, why would I put on an omni shield if i have to castrate my weapons AND have my shields be less potent in a fight against more than one enemy.  If anything, make mods wither only have bonuses at the cost of OP, or make them carry trade-offs but cost no OP.  Either or both will work, but don't ask for five to ten weapon's worth of space just to install a mod that penalizes you for it's use anyway.

I don't agree with any of this.

The intent behind the change to augmented engines seems obvious to me-- it's to balance out the obvious advantages in map control by frigates. Basically, with the way it is now, you can have a pretty good point capping frigate or hunter killer, but it will be less valuable as a ship of the line. The penalty to flux dissipation is especially pronounced in cruisers and capital ships, which, again, is obviously intended given that those ships are much slower and rely on shields and weaponry to protect themselves, not high speed maneuver. It also makes sense. Modding a little engine isn't the same as modding a warship's massive reactor-- the penalties for the warship will be much more noticeable.

The entire thrust of your argument appears to be that you don't believe in hull mods that requires some kind of tradeoff, and that seems kind of ridiculous to me. The tactical benefits of some hull mods clearly outweigh their deficiencies in some classes of ship.

Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want.  Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost?  I didn't know the docks could be more worthless. 

Well, to be fair, the weapons are usually fairly cheap compared to the ship. So it's okay in that respect.

Though that causes a new problem: Early on in the game, weapons you can buy are few and far between.

Because we all know that what the game needed more was an even slower start...

Just bleh, I need a save editor so I can skip all this nonsense.

You don't need a save editor, you need a basic understanding of how to open a file in notepad and change a few variables.

And yeah, this game DID need a slower start. It's building toward being, you know, an actual GAME, not a loosely connected series of battle simulators.

[Wyvern]

Okay, I can kinda see the point on specialized "capping" frigates in a large fleet.

Aside from that, I've seen exactly three situations where the new augmented engines is usable:
1: On a ship I just captured, that I plan on selling.  Mod it to have auto-repair & augmented engines (for improved non-combat speed).
2: On a slow carrier, where I care more about non-combat speed than direct combat capability.
3: On a vigilance class frigate that's been equipped with a graviton beam - the only combination I've found where the penalty isn't crippling.  (Though I'll admit, I haven't checked out every ship; it's possible that a graviton beam armed tempest would be similarly usable.)  Still, this is more of a comment on the graviton beam being exceptionally flux-efficient, than it is on the penalty being reasonable.

As such, I think the 25% penalty is a bit much - between that and the high ordnance point cost, it's just not viable for much of anything.  (Footnote: Once character progression is in, and we can get bonus OP on our flagship, this may change.)

I've seen no situations where the new advanced optics is worth using.  None.  In fact, I've been putting the increased turret tracking speed mod on everything that uses beam weapons, and they *still* have issues with losing target lock if I'm not careful with my maneuvering.

Fortunately, the new integrated targeting unit can (mostly) replace advanced optics, especially for larger ships.

[icepick37]

I use advanced optics ALWAYS on close support wolves. Or anything with grav beams or tac lasers.

Tac lasers are too slow already to care, so it's SO much more useful to have extra range. And the same is mostly true of grav beams/phase beam. It's not really meant for pd, but it is still a gimme for assault lasers. I think it's a fair tradeoff.

[Iscariot]

Okay, I can kinda see the point on specialized "capping" frigates in a large fleet.

Aside from that, I've seen exactly three situations where the new augmented engines is usable:
1: On a ship I just captured, that I plan on selling.  Mod it to have auto-repair & augmented engines (for improved non-combat speed).
2: On a slow carrier, where I care more about non-combat speed than direct combat capability.
3: On a vigilance class frigate that's been equipped with a graviton beam - the only combination I've found where the penalty isn't crippling.  (Though I'll admit, I haven't checked out every ship; it's possible that a graviton beam armed tempest would be similarly usable.)  Still, this is more of a comment on the graviton beam being exceptionally flux-efficient, than it is on the penalty being reasonable.

As such, I think the 25% penalty is a bit much - between that and the high ordnance point cost, it's just not viable for much of anything.  (Footnote: Once character progression is in, and we can get bonus OP on our flagship, this may change.)

I've seen no situations where the new advanced optics is worth using.  None.  In fact, I've been putting the increased turret tracking speed mod on everything that uses beam weapons, and they *still* have issues with losing target lock if I'm not careful with my maneuvering.

Fortunately, the new integrated targeting unit can (mostly) replace advanced optics, especially for larger ships.

I put augmented engines on Tempests with elite crews. It makes them so fast that the few points they lose in flux related stuff doesn't even matter since they can outfight any other frigate or fighter wing. They're basically unstoppable point cappers.

Recently, I started putting Atropos torpedo racks on them, and started using them as extremely fast torpedo boats. I'll let the forum know how that works out.

[Tarran]

Problem is that it wasn't "viable" before...
it was too powerfull of a hull mod, gotta balance somewhere... increasing the OP cost would've caused similiar issues

That is incorrect. Percentage loss CANNOT be compared to a flat loss (AKA OP cost increase).

And about balance... The ship would be very fragile or much weaker for a small gain. It already cut a bit out of most ships. For example, on a Hammerhead having it already left me with two options: Kill flux dissipation, or take off a main gun. That's already pretty balanced.

This would force me to either massively ruin my frontal guns down to equal firepower of a hound, or have flux dissipation so bad that I would have a hard time firing my main guns or protecting myself from missiles. Effectively turning a nice equilateral triangle of engines-dissipation-weapons into... well, think up a shape, I can't.

I would never put Augmented Engines on any ships that aren't expendable or massively slow if it turned out like that.

also it's "only" 25% off the base flux venting... a hound for example only suffers a 25 flux dissipation penalty

Where does it say "base"?

The intent behind the change to augmented engines seems obvious to me-- it's to balance out the obvious advantages in map control by frigates. Basically, with the way it is now, you can have a pretty good point capping frigate or hunter killer, but it will be less valuable as a ship of the line.

Yes, perhaps. Though the thing is that the cost is too high for a slight increase. The ship wouldn't be just less valuable, it would be nearly useless.

The penalty to flux dissipation is especially pronounced in cruisers and capital ships, which, again, is obviously intended given that those ships are much slower and rely on shields and weaponry to protect themselves, not high speed maneuver. It also makes sense.

Yes it makes more sense for capital ships to suffer more, but all ships would suffer pretty bad from the nerf as far as I can tell.

I put augmented engines on Tempests with elite crews. It makes them so fast that the few points they lose in flux related stuff doesn't even matter since they can outfight any other frigate or fighter wing. They're basically unstoppable point cappers.

That's kinda biased because Tempests are the fastest ships in the game next to the hound.

[Iscariot]

Too much? I don't think so. I didn't even notice that there was a change in flux dissipation until yesterday, and I'd been flying a Tempest myself all that time.

Map control is way, way, too good. The flux dissipation nerf is just there to balance that out. Besides, capital ships way faster now and, at least in the case of my lovely Conquest, don't even need the augmented engines anymore. I got it going 177 with a few Nav Buoys .

[Tarran]

Oh, I just realized that the changes are already in effect. I must look kinda like an idiot now.

So, everyone mentally change all my arguments that insist that the change was coming and replace it with something more sensible.

And I forfeit my argument on it not saying base because it does in fact affect only the base.

I forfeit most or all of my arguments on the matter entirely, in fact. Except for the un-strike-through(ed) ones.

That still does not make me happy with the changes, though.

[Dreyven]

That is incorrect. Percentage loss CANNOT be compared to a flat loss (AKA OP cost increase).

And about balance...

It can and i will...
What does the decrease in Flux dissipation do?
I need to spend more OP on Flux vents, to even out the flux dissipation and "make up" for the losses
Or, i can't use certain weapons anymore because they produce too much flux for the reduced dissipation rate and have to switch to weaker guns

What does Change in OP do?
You can't spend as many Points on Flux vent's because you don't have that much points (resulting in reduced flux dissipation)
Or, you run out of points to Mount Big/good guns and have to mount weaker guns/cheaper ones


Y did we get the %age based nerf?
Because the OP of a ship mainly depend on the amount of Mount's it has, it will atleast have enough OP that you can mount a properly sized weapon in each slot
A increase in OP cost would've impacted the ships with less Mounts/OP more than other ships
The %age based nerf aims at the Flux dissipation Rate, this usually goes up the more "high tech" ships get...
theese "high tech ships" are generally very fast to begin with and should benefit less from this mod
However, the "older" ships, relying on ballistic mount and armor to protect themself benefit more
Especially the Hound!
I think this is the reasoning behind this choice

[Wyvern]

It really depends on the ship.  As noted, there are some ship / armament combinations where a 25% nerf to flux isn't a big deal.  But they're usually ones that had good flux dissipation to start with, combined with exceptionally flux-efficient armament.

And, ok, I can see actually using advanced optics on a wolf, when you're treating its turrets as if they were all fixed-forward guns that don't need to turn.  But anything that actually uses turrets as turrets...  bleh.  I used to combine advanced optics with pd lasers; that's not really viable anymore.

[icepick37]

And, ok, I can see actually using advanced optics on a wolf, when you're treating its turrets as if they were all fixed-forward guns that don't need to turn.  But anything that actually uses turrets as turrets...  bleh.  I used to combine advanced optics with pd lasers; that's not really viable anymore.

Yeah I hear you there. I do think the nerf was necessary, though. It was just too much.

[Arrath]

Also the new ship system that strips all the weapons off is pretty painful, do not want.  Limited and stripped of all weapons but retain most of their cost?  I didn't know the docks could be more worthless. 

Well, to be fair, the weapons are usually fairly cheap compared to the ship. So it's okay in that respect.

Though that causes a new problem: Early on in the game, weapons you can buy are few and far between.

Because we all know that what the game needed more was an even slower start...

Just bleh, I need a save editor so I can skip all this nonsense.

The saves are in .xml files, you can edit them with notepad or any other text editor.

[Tarran]

It can and i will...
What does the decrease in Flux dissipation do?
I need to spend more OP on Flux vents, to even out the flux dissipation and "make up" for the losses
Or, i can't use certain weapons anymore because they produce too much flux for the reduced dissipation rate and have to switch to weaker guns

What does Change in OP do?
You can't spend as many Points on Flux vent's because you don't have that much points (resulting in reduced flux dissipation)
Or, you run out of points to Mount Big/good guns and have to mount weaker guns/cheaper ones

You danced around my question. You did not compare percentage to flat.

Let's say a ship has a base flux dissipation of 2000. After AE, it has 500 less. Let's say AE costs 20 OP. To compensate, you need to spend 50 OP.

Let's try another ship of the same class with a base dissipation of 1000, 250 less after AE. AE costs the same. To compensate, you have to spend 25 OP.

Let's just increase the OP cost to fit the first ship and remove the percentage penalty.

The first ship has to spend 70 OP to get AE now.

While the second ship, guess what, has to spend 70 OP too!

So, let's try setting AE's OP to 25 now.

Well, the first ship now has 25 extra OP!

See, they show different results.