Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.  (Read 7442 times)

Harmful Mechanic

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • On break.
    • View Profile
Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« on: April 26, 2018, 10:04:08 PM »

I was thinking about this for unrelated reasons (mainly a hullmod of my own that does something similar), and it occurred to me that a flat 15% range cut is a drastic penalty to both energy weapons specifically and short-ranged weapons generally that makes Unstable Injector less useful on precisely the ships and builds that could benefit the most from it.

Instead, I'd like to suggest that the penalty be changed to 50% beyond 600 range, the same way Safety Overrides works; this would both trim more range off longer-ranged weapons (1000>800 instead of 1000>850, for example) while leaving shorter range weapons less affected, and as a side bonus the math is cleaner and more intuitive to the player - many more round numbers and multiples of 50, as opposed to the 800>680 or 450>382.5 values it produces now.

With this change, weapons at 600 range and under would be untouched, encouraging players to take a second look at weapons like the Pulse Laser and Heavy Blaster on ships that will be rigged up for close-range combat. As well, short-range weapons like the AM Blaster, Assault Chaingun and Heavy Machine Gun that need every last bit of range they can get wouldn't be touched either; you'd have viable uses for those in builds that didn't rely on Safety Overrides.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 10:34:13 PM by Soren »
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2018, 10:26:01 PM »

I was thinking about this for unrelated reasons (mainly a hullmod of my own that does something similar), and it occurred to me that a flat 15% range cut is a drastic penalty to both energy weapons specifically and short-ranged weapons generally that makes Unstable Injector less useful on precisely the ships and builds that could benefit the most from it.

Hmm. If there are sets of weapons that are unaffected/largely unaffected, then UI becomes an "always-best" choice for builds using those, because of how important speed is. And 600 range also includes a large number of low-end small ballistics.

UI is very intentionally an unavoidable tradeoff between speed and range, since those are the two key stats. Otherwise it's at best a no-brainer and at worst overpowered. Or, I suppose, so overpriced that it's not worth picking - but it'd be very hard to find a middle ground. IIRC it did not have a range penalty for a while and it was basically an auto-pick.
Logged

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2018, 10:49:43 PM »

I was thinking about this for unrelated reasons (mainly a hullmod of my own that does something similar), and it occurred to me that a flat 15% range cut is a drastic penalty to both energy weapons specifically and short-ranged weapons generally that makes Unstable Injector less useful on precisely the ships and builds that could benefit the most from it.

Hmm. If there are sets of weapons that are unaffected/largely unaffected, then UI becomes an "always-best" choice for builds using those, because of how important speed is. And 600 range also includes a large number of low-end small ballistics.

UI is very intentionally an unavoidable tradeoff between speed and range, since those are the two key stats. Otherwise it's at best a no-brainer and at worst overpowered. Or, I suppose, so overpriced that it's not worth picking - but it'd be very hard to find a middle ground. IIRC it did not have a range penalty for a while and it was basically an auto-pick.
I think that was back when skills were much more powerful, no skill cap and we had augmented engines as well as UI
Logged
Help out MesoTroniK, a modder in need

2021 is 2020 won
2022 is 2020 too

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2018, 10:56:57 PM »

I think unstable injector is in a good spot. I use it on certain builds and in certain parts of the campaign progression, but not others. I don't want it to be mandatory again, because then its just a case of 'the player's fleet is always faster than the AI' (how it used to be).

With 600 being the range cutoff, UI would become mandatory on most frigate builds again, instead of being simply a very good choice.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2018, 11:00:54 PM »

Even with current range penalty UI is very attractive.
It's autopick for most frigates: exceptions are Hyperion (does not depend on conventional speed) or SO builds (too OP-strained and already faster than anything except SO+UI). All-beams Wolf can also make meaningful choice between having UI or not.
In DE size it's autopick for Medusa, others can be viable both ways (non-UI builds are stronger in same size class, but risk more against Cruisers/Capitals). But non-UI builds need ITU, and it's very hard to get in campaign.
On Cruisers and Capitals UI is generally not worth using - they don't get that fast either way, while losing range hurts them a lot more.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 03:00:02 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Harmful Mechanic

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • On break.
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2018, 11:03:03 PM »

If there are sets of weapons that are unaffected/largely unaffected, then UI becomes an "always-best" choice for builds using those, because of how important speed is.

That's kind of the point; it's a buff to shorter-ranged weapons like the Ion Pulser that right now are very niche (essentially restricted to SO or phase ships), and it penalizes longer-ranged weapons more; the Gauss Cannon gets cut down to 900 range instead of 1020, for example.

I agree that it becomes always-best... but I'm not sure that's inherently bad, because of which ships are affected. Capitals and cruisers already depend on longer ranged weapons; this makes shorter-ranged builds and hulls more viable. Ships armed with energy weapons already have few to no reasons to use Unstable Injector, because of the range penalty on top of the inherent range disadvantages of projectile energy weapons; this levels that out.

If the net result is that ITU/DTC are already must-haves for slower/ballistic-focused ships, but UI becomes obligatory for faster/energy-focused ships (and maybe most importantly, offers a clearer choice WRT midline ships that can mount both; take ITU, kite-and-snipe, or take UI, become a short-range sledgehammer exploiting the combo potential of ballistic and energy slots), that could level the playing field in a couple of areas where we keep hearing complaints; frigates, high-tech ships, non-beam energy weapons. Right now, ITU is already cheap enough in OP terms that it's mandatory (IMO) on non-SO frigates; it's a little different when the choice is between 'which hullmod should be mandatory' as opposed to which hullmod should you choose between (and if your concern is that ITU + UI would become mandatory; make them mutually exclusive, force the player to pick one or the other.)

I'd argue that with weapons like the IR Pulse Laser, if you're relying on them you actually lose less range on an SO ship (500>462.5) than on a ship with Unstable Injector (425), so there's no real reason to use UI on those ships at all. It's even more pronounced when you consider short-ranged PD weapons that aren't affected by SO at all, but are by UI; Vulcan Cannons, LMGs, PD Lasers.

I'm coming at this from the angle of having designed a fast midline faction with lots of hybrid slots and wanting energy weapons to be competitive on them; perhaps that's not applicable to vanilla ships, but I think it solves a lot of edge cases and feels cleaner than the current percentage approach.

And 600 range also includes a large number of low-end small ballistics.

Yeah, that's a bigger issue. I dunno though - on something like a Lasher, is that really a problem? I guess it might be a minor buff to larger ships that use small ballistics, but given that those ships have short ranges as it is, UI would give them an option besides ITU, SO, or simply being second-best.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 12:48:41 AM by Soren »
Logged

Dark.Revenant

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2806
    • View Profile
    • Sc2Mafia
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2018, 11:49:04 PM »

If you pick short ranged weapons, you basically have to use UI anyway.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2018, 11:52:40 PM »

On a side-note, how exactly do multiple flat and multiplication modifiers interact?

Like most difficult case - 1000 range beam + UI + Implants skill + ITU(Capital) + Optics + SO + Electronic Warfare.

If you pick short ranged weapons, you basically have to use UI anyway.

True, what really matters is not absolute difference in range, but how quickly can you close the gap (or get away).
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 11:58:49 PM by TaLaR »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2018, 05:02:31 AM »

The only time I use Unstable Injector is on carriers with only fighters and PD mounted, since they are unaffected, and do not need to spend OP on ITU.  -15% to shot range hurts enough on ships with conventional weapons.  Maybe useful on ships with Gunnery Implants 3, in which case the penalty offsets the bonus, but the extra range from it (and no OP spent) is more useful than the speed.

The only reason why I do not get Gunnery Implants 3 is because I cannot decide whether I want to marry my character to a carrier or not.  (I do not like to marry my character to a particular ship, and I leave points unspent due to decision paralysis.)  If I do, then Gunnery Implants 3 is useless and I need the skill points elsewhere.  If not for carrier flagships, Gunnery Implants 3 would be auto-pick like Electronic Warfare 1 and Loadout Design 3.  It is just that good for anything that relies on conventional weapons, which is most of the ships.

Quote
True, what really matters is not absolute difference in range, but how quickly can you close the gap (or get away).
At least with original -25% penalty (and less OP to afford other stuff I need), I could not get into range without taking too much hard flux on shield.  For example, Hammerhead with UI could not attack effectively without Mauler and HVD, and even with them, it had to get into enemy range and trade shots.  It was like using Mortar and Arbalest, except with less OP and much rarer weapons.  -15% is not as drastic but still a noticeable bite out of shot range.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 05:10:16 AM by Megas »
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2018, 07:30:09 AM »

Quote
True, what really matters is not absolute difference in range, but how quickly can you close the gap (or get away).
At least with original -25% penalty (and less OP to afford other stuff I need), I could not get into range without taking too much hard flux on shield.  For example, Hammerhead with UI could not attack effectively without Mauler and HVD, and even with them, it had to get into enemy range and trade shots.  It was like using Mortar and Arbalest, except with less OP and much rarer weapons.  -15% is not as drastic but still a noticeable bite out of shot range.

"Attacking effectively" is not about having absolute range+speed dominance. That would be next step. There is no point to UI +Mauler + HVD. Your range is not going to be impressive either way, so UI Hamerhead needs to concentrate on efficiency. And also take hard shields and some caps, since it has no tricks like skimming to help with approach.

UI Hammerhead is weaker than non-UI ITU Hammerhead in most situations. Itt has easier time catching Medusa/frigates or avoiding Capitals.And you don't have ITU early in campaign to make the choice either way. No-ITU +No-UI is way too risky - vulnerable to pretty much everything in terms of range +speed.
Logged

Embolism

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2018, 07:30:54 AM »

I think UO's debuff should scale inversely to ship size like its speed buff does, something like 20/15/10/10 (essentially same as its speed buff). As it is you might use it for Frigates but never for a Capital Ship.

I also would like Augmented Engines to get its speed buff back, give it another debuff if needed. Unstable Injectors thematically feels jury-rigged and a more "professional" version (like DTC vs ITU) would be nice.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2018, 07:41:36 AM »

Re: Hammerhead
If I use anything other than Mauler/HVD, then attack range is so short that it eats too much hard flux before it gets in range and I am better off with Safety Override for better speed advantage and dissipation.

Similar results with various other gunships I tried.  Hammerhead happened to be the most memorable.  On something like Wolf, it was suicide with extremely short range with Pulse Laser or Heavy Blaster, and not enough OP to max out flux stats.

The point was the range penalty (on top of less OP to spend) is significant for everything that relies on weapons.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 07:44:57 AM by Megas »
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2018, 07:47:34 AM »

I'm not sure the tradeoff of range vs. speed's quite right.

At 15%, 800 range is 680.

Presuming you traded OPs and range for 20 su/s speed, you've actually lost significant damage; 120 range is probably a second or so, even if the opponent's sitting still, and UI only contributed a little bit.  So you've got more speed for at least one free hit from every gun in that range band, even if they're sitting still.

Obviously, in real fights, your opponents aren't sitting still.  If you're both equal without UI, and they back-peddle, then the gap is now 6 seconds where you're in their range band but not vice-versa... ouch. 

Because that's the math, I tend to spend on UI only when I need a pursuit ship that always wins vs. fast Frigates (and past midgame, I don't bother; I let them go); the times when being a lot faster matters are usually at the end of fights.

I think it's fair to say that ship speed's a "god stat", but only when there's a pretty large difference between ships A and B, or it's a fast player-ship being used to kite endlessly (which CR is there to deal with).  I agree that UI without penalties looks like a "must-buy", but the range decrease matters quite a bit; anything that decreases range, I don't take, other than SO (and then only before midgame; SO's effects on CR are simply not viable when you're facing 20-minute battle scenarios). 

If the range nerf was roughly 5%, it's about right; ship A can dictate engagements to B, but B always gets to shoot first, all other things being equal; what you're paying OPs for is to win pursuits, at that point.  I might consider buying UI then.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2018, 07:58:04 AM »

#Hammerhead
2x Heavy Mortar, 2x Railgun, UI is a great build for early and midgame where the enemy has a surplus of fast frigates, but struggles against cruisers because it gets outranged. HVD + Mauler gives it the range, but low kinetic DPS means it needs to close to the 700 range band anyways.

For my 'junk' Hammerheads, 2x heavy autocannon 2x light assault guns works and tears fighters up without using too rare weapons.


@Xenoargh
One on one comparing the numbers that may be right, but as you point out real combat is so much more complicated than that. Speed lets you avoid being surrounded if outnumbered, or flank if having an advantage. A ship doesn't need to be in weapons range to be a threat; if the enemy turns away, it then swoops in and fires without taking any hard flux at all. (The AI is actually pretty good at it too.)

Another case to consider is the (very common) situation where two ships are fighting in the middle of their range bands and one gains a flux advantage. The ship with UI can safely disengage - taking a few armor hits probably - or can just keep firing on the overwhelmed enemy. The ship without UI can only hope it can drive the enemy away with damage, or by an allies intervention.

The current UI is weighing all those advantages against being outranged. I tend towards speed when fighting numerous frigates/destroyers and only a few enemy cruisers, to negate their flank advantage, but switch to range once the enemies can field a real battle line.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestion: Change the Unstable Injector penalty.
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2018, 08:39:39 AM »

If the range nerf was roughly 5%, it's about right; ship A can dictate engagements to B, but B always gets to shoot first, all other things being equal; what you're paying OPs for is to win pursuits, at that point.  I might consider buying UI then.
Is it even necessary to manually fight pursuits?  With the loss of pre-0.8 skill power, just about anything that is fast enough to catch things is at risk of taking significant damage or getting killed.  Plus, it takes about a minute to resolve.  Given how quick, easy, safe, and reasonably effective auto-resolve is, even with civilians or recently recovered warships with junk weapons recently looted from battle, I do not even bother fighting pursuits anymore.

P.S.  I forgot one other use for Unstable Injector - Hounds and Cerberus spec'ed as dedicated freighters without annoying Civilian-Grade that blocks Safety Override.  If I want freighters early in the game - early enough that I cannot outfight everything that can ambush my fleet, those ships with both UI and SO should be fast enough to outrun most enemies.

P.P.S.  @ Xenoargh:  AI backpedals much and gleefully kites away from your ship unless it is ready to swarm with several buddies.  There is a reason why I call AI cowardly frequently, or Spathi occasionally.  This is why I do not use UI on most ships.  I have considered UI on ships with Gunnery Implants 3, but due to decision paralysis between generalist and dedicated carrier pilot, I have not taken it (without a backup save to undo skill picks needed for various campaign or simulator tests).  Generally, I pick skills that everyone needs (like Electronic Warfare 1 and Loadout Design 3) and I have about 18 skill points unspent on my level 40 character.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 08:55:48 AM by Megas »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3