What possible ideas have you come up for the active ability? Flux dump? RoF increase? Speed increase? Or something more complicated?
The other way of looking at it, and I know this might be unpopular, but why not make SO completely Pather-exclusive? I think part of the problem is that we're trying to balance SO from Kites to Dooms and everything in between. SO could exist in its current form if it was limited to very specific set of hulls and conditions. Within that framework, even Capitals could have SO if we're only talking Prometheus Mk. IIs. Likewise, most SO ships would have D-mods, offsetting some of its performance boosts. If you want to play as Pathers, you have access to this super-different playstyle but you're limited to mostly low-tech/junk ships. That said, with some Industry and Leadership skills, it could be a legitimate way to swarm your enemies with really angry rust buckets. (If I wasn't clear enough, SO would only be found built-in on (LP) ships and wouldn't be an option anymore. That said, you could expand the roster of (LP) ships a touch)
The term "Safety Overrides" has always implied to me a bypass of critical systems that really shouldn't be messed with. Within the vein of an "active ability", I think weapons could be overcharged, RoF could be increased, engine output could go up, etc. but at the risk of flame out, weapon malfunctions or even disabling shields.Have something catastrophic happen if you plan poorly enough to overload while SO is on. Because really, that's got to be one of the events the safeties are there for.
Have something catastrophic happen if you plan poorly enough to overload while SO is on. Because really, that's got to be one of the events the safeties are there for.
... cruisers, the PPT simply stops mattering alltogether because the base values are so large. You just slap Hardened Subsystems on top of SO and the battle is over before your ships even start losing CR.I disagree.
But as is it's also not all that interesting because - alright, it does add a playstyle, but that playstyle is very similar for everything and there's not too much to it.
The thing is, I haven't really seen a convincing case laid out anywhere for why SO needs a fundamental overhaul, as opposed to putting in some tweaks to balance it out. Sure, the same people will complain very vocally about it every chance they get, but never really explain the reasons why.Then you somehow forgot or chose to ignore so many posts over the last period, most probably from me since I whine about it the most, but others have also been pretty vocal and explained why do they think it's not in a good place.
...how you said that it shows that SO is a plague and should be changed.I disagree.
"but I find it fun"Yes. This is traditionally what games are for, right?
So it's very much a high-risk, high-reward strategy, and something to speed up the early game but not really effective later on, which seems fine to me.I agree with this.
I think the main issue with SO currently is that its benefit lasts too long before the drawbacks kick in.Change the PPT reduction based on hull size, instead of just a flat -66% for everything.
No idea starts fully baked ;) so it’ll be like manoeuvring jets mixed with accelerated ammo feeders? I’m really liking the idea of making it an active ability because then you’re not wasting PPT or CR before and between engagements.What possible ideas have you come up for the active ability? Flux dump? RoF increase? Speed increase? Or something more complicated?Some kind of +speed and +firepower thing! Like I said, half-baked :)
I like this, increase overload time and have it cause hull damage. Could also do the same with weapons and engines when they are damaged with longer repair times and bonus hull/armour damage.The term "Safety Overrides" has always implied to me a bypass of critical systems that really shouldn't be messed with. Within the vein of an "active ability", I think weapons could be overcharged, RoF could be increased, engine output could go up, etc. but at the risk of flame out, weapon malfunctions or even disabling shields.Have something catastrophic happen if you plan poorly enough to overload while SO is on. Because really, that's got to be one of the events the safeties are there for.
I like Safety Overrides. Especially when applied to cruisers.That’s what easy mode setting is for. That you use safety overrides as easy mode is kinda proving our point.
It's a fun way to lower the bar for player skill/ability, insomuch as it allows the use of high-risk plays without requiring the player to play "perfectly".
The cost is suitably annoying, and while not debilitating is an encumberance you're not allowed to forget.
Ooooh a nice little topic for me. OP also forgot one important bonus which SO too gives, and that is permanent zero flux speed boost. Which is why I also think it breaks some cruisers (to a less extent destroyers), since for them, 50 speed more on top of the base boost is a lot. For a frigate that already goes fast, it's just a cherry on top. It's hilarious that the only counter argument to this is "but I find it fun". Yes, usually players are sad to see broken toys go away, or get nerfed, no surprise there.Permanent 0-flux bonus speed is just part of the speed buff SO gives. I think that how it proportionally benefits bigger ships more is balanced by how bigger ships have bigger weapons which have longer ranges generally and so the range penalty is proportionally greater especially when ITU was an alternative.
I like the active ability idea, I even like the Pather exclusive SO, many ways to go about it honestly. But we have to take a step back and take a long hard look at what do we want to achieve here. Most important thing is that
1. It remains a unique tool in the game that makes some ships play differently.
2. It leads to a high risk - high reward style of gameplay (it's right there in the name).
And 3. It shouldn't make for a boring cookie cutter path where each SO ship does the same exact thing and you just need critical mass to overcome its downsides.
The thing is, I haven't really seen a convincing case laid out anywhere for why SO needs a fundamental overhaul, as opposed to putting in some tweaks to balance it out. Sure, the same people will complain very vocally about it every chance they get, but never really explain the reasons why.
SO is nice to speed up early fights when the enemies are easy. The reason is because the enemy isn't really all that threatening early on, so it's no problem to rush in, absorb their pitiful damage, and then do your damage and scoot out before you flux out.
But it really falters when you get to the more difficult fights, such as Ordos fleets for example. There's simply too much damage to absorb as you go in that you have too little flux left to deal enough damage before you have to back off. Also, SO works best against isolated targets. But since you go in so close, enemy ships tend to back off back into the rest of the enemy fleet. So every time an SO ship fails to finish off its target, the target backs off into the enemy fleet and effectively increases the enemy fleet's ship density, which makes it more difficult to attack another ship afterward. So it's very much a high-risk, high-reward strategy, and something to speed up the early game but not really effective later on, which seems fine to me.SpoilerI think the main issue with SO currently is that its benefit lasts too long before the drawbacks kick in. SO only affects PPT, but not CR degradation. Plus, CR degradation takes a long time to really make an impact. If the ship has Combat Endurance and Hardened Subsystems, it takes 356 seconds to go from 100% to 50% CR, which is longer than double Ordos fights. But that should be an easy fix; just make it so that if the ship has SO, then its CR also degrades 3 times as fast. Or, make it so that if the ship has SO, then its max CR is 50%. Basically so that once CR starts degrading, then the ship starts having malfunctions pretty soon. So that its drawback kicks in earlier.
What may be interesting is if SO only lasts for the duration of PPT. Then (perhaps with a 10-second overload or something to signify that the ship is adjusting back to normal), the ship returns to normal operation, i.e. non-SO speed, flux, weapon range, etc. So then it becomes an interesting decision of if the loadout is specialized for SO or normal operation (for example: do you bother to take ITU when it basically has no effect until the ship's PPT is gone?). Also, this makes it easier to wait out SO frigates if they're just kiting all over the map, since they'll slow down after PPT is out.But as is it's also not all that interesting because - alright, it does add a playstyle, but that playstyle is very similar for everything and there's not too much to it.
Disagree with this. SO makes the game more arcade-like, which some people prefer. When I switched from SO Medusa to Onslaught XIV as flagship, I started running battles at 2x speed, simply because there isn't that much to *do* or think about tactically or strategically. But there was no way I could get away with that in a SO Medusa because I was constantly on the knife's edge of running in and trying to do as much damage as I could without overloading or taking (too much) damage before I ran out to safety. Some people like that sort of adrenaline-filled playing.
(If anything, because I can now run battles at 2x speed without using SO, I can get through fights much more quickly than before, so in that sense makes SO worse than non-SO -- it's less effective in a kills-per-playing-minute sort of way.)
But even within that playstyle, different SO ships play differently. A SO Medusa plays very differently than a SO Sunder for example. The SO Medusa relies on constantly dancing around the battlefield (especially with its exposed engines and having to get close to the enemy fleet) to survive and make its impact, whereas the SO Sunder, due to its bad shield efficiency, has to rely on opportunistically going in and using its overwhelming damage to take out its target quickly and retreating before it takes (too much) damage, then regenerating its flux safely behind friendly ships. That's a very different way to play, and in some ways mirrors their non-SO counterparts. SO doesn't change the ships to one-size-fits-all playing in the least. The player's tactics will still depend very much on the particular ship being used.[close]
Yes. This is traditionally what games are for, right?I'm sorry but with that mindset why do we even bother balancing the game? Should we have left the part of the game where skills were so strong a player could solo the whole game in a single ship, just because someone found that fun? Granted you can kinda do this now as well, it's just harder. You could use that out as a response on literally every single nerf that happens: "oh don't nerf it pls, I won't have fun anymore". I'm shocked I even have to explain this to someone who spent a lot of time here.
However I don't think changing the fundamental behaviour of SO will achieve anything beyond diminishing player options.Oh no, how will the players ever get out of early game without the ez mode option.
If you want to have an easy and boring experience you can mod it yourself.Not everyone gets the exact same experience as you from any given <thing>. Maybe chill a little.
Then you somehow forgot or chose to ignore so many posts over the last period, most probably from me since I whine about it the most, but others have also been pretty vocal and explained why do they think it's not in a good place.
So since I don't want to repeat my thoughts for the 10th time, I'll link the old post I made which was a tiny bit before the current patch, but my opinion is still pretty similar. https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=22963.0
In a way that it transforms a crap ship into a scary piece of metal that can now cut through your fleet. Fighting a horde of SO ships is cancer, even more so than phase ships imo. The whole thing is supercharging ships to bring them multiple power levels up, at the expense of PPT. Which means in the end, it's just a win harder/faster hull mod.
I don't mind that per se, but the fact that it makes some thing truly broken that many discussion about ship builds go like this:
- "Hey I'm struggling with X ship, don't know what's a good loadout for it."
- "Have you tried putting SO and the only weapons that actually have sense to go along with it?"
It makes some parts of the game bloody boring.
Thank god low tech is getting some love again because all they were good for before were SO builds. But that also makes previous SO optimal builds even more good. Enforcer is a good example of a dumb ship that "begs" for SO. And I hate that it will never get any more flux dissipation that it desperately needs because the SO builds will be 3 times as annoying. The new Eradicator is a prime candidate for SO, ship with already good base speed and AAF system, sign me up Jimmy. SO is a plague that makes the best part of the game (personally), ship customisation, a bit too easy and lazy. There's really no thought behind SO builds, you immediately know which weapons and hull mods go along with it. High tech ships are also victims of "ez SO ship" cookie cutter builds.
As an average / below average player, SO since its introduction has been a useful (and entertaining) boon. I don't use it all the time, but I'll be sorry to see it go.
But it really falters when you get to the more difficult fights, such as Ordos fleets for example.
(If anything, because I can now run battles at 2x speed without using SO, I can get through fights much more quickly than before, so in that sense makes SO worse than non-SO -- it's less effective in a kills-per-playing-minute sort of way.)
Unrelated to above posts, just in general. Why is Hardened Subsystems even available on SO ships? That goes against any common sense. You supercharge your ship, let go of any safety precautions, but you can easily build a cheap hullmod that will remove a part of the penalty.
Should we have left the part of the game where skills were so strong a player could solo the whole game in a single ship, just because someone found that fun? Granted you can kinda do this now as well, it's just harder.You could in 0.9.1. In 0.95 combat skills generally don't feel as impactful, or at least old tricks and ships (Conquest, Aurora, Tempest) don't. Derelict Contingent was busted and it's gone. Doom was busted and it's mostly gone, and I don't like phase ships in the first place. Now I wonder whether it's that we can get 38% of skills instead of ~50%, or if it's the higher baseline number of officers. It doubled from 4 to 8, for you and the enemies. Enemies now field as many officers as fleets whose gimmick was fielding lots of officers. And it's even worse with Remnants. As for the skills, another thing is that Loadout Design, while common, wasn't something you were expected to use quite always. But S-mods you get as a baseline. But perhaps this isn't the thread to discuss this topic in.
What are you on about?
Then you somehow forgot or chose to ignore so many posts over the last period
How can anyone argue that SO increases variety is beyond me.
My man, look at your posts and then see the response you gave now. Hypocritical innit?
What's with the trend of deflecting single arguments and saying "that could be said about anything".
The thought I had about it - and it's not fully fleshed out, and I'm not fully committed to doing this, so, big disclaimer/grain of salt - is to change SO to function as an active ability instead of a constant passive buff.
The idea being that yeah, if you nerf it, it gets less interesting. But as is it's also not all that interesting because - alright, it does add a playstyle, but that playstyle is very similar for everything and there's not too much to it. If you make it an ability where activating it, say, costs the ship some peak time (and then CR when it's out of PPT) then you can have it be really powerful, and "when do you trigger it" becomes an interesting tactical decision. (What effects exactly it would have is up in the air; in a similar vein to what it currently does, though.)
And then you'd have a new control for "active ability"; something like Neural Transfer would use that control, too, ships would be restricted to just one hullmod that adds an ability (and the door would be open to more abilities like this that can be slotted into ships), etc.
Again, though, this is all fairly half baked; these are just my thoughts at the moment. It's entirely possible none of that would go anywhere. (And if it did, I'd probably leave the original SO in the game and accessible via console...)
Since it got kindof lost behind Alex coming in with the 'make SO active' notion, I'd like to re-suggest my idea: Make SO something that's fleet-level limited, like automated ships, with a very small cap by default (enough that an SO destroyer with Combat Endurance is hitting maybe 45% max CR), and an increased cap - enough to run a cruiser or two - if you've got the appropriate Industry skill.I like the sound of this, you'd still be able to use a few SO ships with no change, but a mono-SO fleet would not be viable due to reduced CR.
And, of course, ships with Ill-Advised Modifications don't count towards the cap.
I don't really want to see SO nerfed in terms of direct combat potential (though removing the always-on zero-flux boost wouldn't be a bad idea), but having it limited so you can't just spam a fleet full of SO Hyperions seems fine.
Faster CR decay doesn't solve the issue though, it just moves the margin for success a little bit.
couterpoint: who the hell has an all SO fleet? unless that's a specific goal someone has set themselves for a playthrough, i just can't imagine someone having more than a few SO ships bc not every ship is suited to it.Since it got kindof lost behind Alex coming in with the 'make SO active' notion, I'd like to re-suggest my idea: Make SO something that's fleet-level limited, like automated ships, with a very small cap by default (enough that an SO destroyer with Combat Endurance is hitting maybe 45% max CR), and an increased cap - enough to run a cruiser or two - if you've got the appropriate Industry skill.I like the sound of this, you'd still be able to use a few SO ships with no change, but a mono-SO fleet would not be viable due to reduced CR.
And, of course, ships with Ill-Advised Modifications don't count towards the cap.
I don't really want to see SO nerfed in terms of direct combat potential (though removing the always-on zero-flux boost wouldn't be a bad idea), but having it limited so you can't just spam a fleet full of SO Hyperions seems fine.
And it would be a comparatively "easy" change, compared to reworking SO completely.
I actually thought people either don't use SO, use or just for the flagship, or go all in on it.
Don't most of your hands free(no flagship) Ordo farming fleets have SO cruisers? And these fleets fight several Ordo at a time, padding the battle length? Not to mention Ordo aren't exactly the most normal of enemy fleets?
Any argument based on modded content is worthless. Not that "Please balance the game around this one extremely niche self-imposed challenge that doesn't really have any practical purpose in the game" is a good argument in the first place.
What's with the trend of deflecting single arguments and saying "that could be said about anything". Like where are you trying to go with such conversation even...
And instead of asking multiple times where are the convincing arguments, you can look in this very thread where most people said getting 2x dissipation is dumb. Are players really that dependent on this hullmod where they can't see it getting changed? Hell you could still have an arcadey assassin fast playstyle, but maybe without braking the laws of the game. We're here trying to discuss a single hullmod that DOUBLES your firepower, and you can get every more crazy with skills and vents.
If you want the saddest example, look at Hyperion. A ship that's gimped without SO, and becomes a monster with it. For all you "uhm it's actually high risk" and "but but it doesn't work in harder fights", there are videos of a fleet of just SO Hyperions killing the hardest fight in vanilla game, where they player doesn't even pilot a ship, just gives commands. Now tell me again those same things from before and how it's healthy for the game.Spoilerhttps://youtu.be/KWTtOfSX8pw (https://youtu.be/KWTtOfSX8pw)[close]Spoilerhttps://youtu.be/1z6aSEce3aw (https://youtu.be/1z6aSEce3aw)[close]
2)Maximum range is traded for more flux (both instantaneously and over the course of the fight) and speed.
Safety Overrides doesn't really double your flux dissipation in practical terms, because it takes the place of OP that would otherwise go into vents. And analysis of the flux effects without considering its effect on weapon range and PPT is woefully incomplete, since that's a heavy cost attached to its benefit.If you're using SO on ships that have zero vents then you're doing something wrong. You save OP on cheaper DPS weapons and hullmods that you now don't need since SO gives so much. 2 Heavy Blasters is much much cheaper on OP than an usual high tech build with more mounts filled. And so are Chainguns and HMGs.
There is a vast difference between "zero vents" and "not maxed vents". A good SO build will often not have maxed flux vents - depending on the hull, this is either because you don't need a dissipation rate higher than your weapon flux generation, or in many cases, because SO ate most of your OP and you just didn't have enough. (SO frigates and destroyers, in particular, will likely still need a significant investment into capacitors, for just one example.)Safety Overrides doesn't really double your flux dissipation in practical terms, because it takes the place of OP that would otherwise go into vents. And analysis of the flux effects without considering its effect on weapon range and PPT is woefully incomplete, since that's a heavy cost attached to its benefit.If you're using SO on ships that have zero vents then you're doing something wrong.
You don't really care about turn rate when your effective range is basically melee.Mathematically, that's backwards. If your guns are turning to track a target that's moving past you at a fixed speed, how fast they need to turn will actually increase the closer that target is.
I guess the fundamental question I'd ask is, is it reasonable to be trading a campaign level resource/issue (i.e. grinding for credits via trade, carrying enough supplies, repair time to get CR back up) for a significant in combat power buff out of proportion for the OP spent? And does how players view such tradeoffs matter? Many players simply will not take Augmented Drive Field since it's trading OP which could be used in combat for a campaign layer benefit. Everyone is expected, at least by endgame, to spend story points to make their ships better, a campaign layer resource being used for in-combat power. Same goes for credits. Credits buy you bigger and better ships. Which is partly why we have DP limits. Credits don't limit maximum fleet power, they limit at the rate at which fleet power can be accrued. DP limits and s-mod limits are what reign in maximum fleet power. Safety Overrides don't interact with the s-mod or DP systems, it interacts only with the credits/supplies system.
Now if Safety Overrides couldn't be used on a ship with s-mods, or if Safety Overrides increased the DP cost of a ship, effectively a cost in terms of combat (you can put fewer of them) and a cost on the campaign layer (the ship costs more supplies per deployment), then that would start to interact with the maximum power of the fleet. The other option is to make safety overrides be worth it's OP value, rather than significantly more than it's OP value would suggest on min-maxed ships.
I feel like you changed Missile Autoforge from a CR hit to a limited charge based system for a reason in 0.7.1a? Was it related to AI usage and CR costs being a permanent fight long thing?
On a only slightly related note, I still like the idea of linking CR tick down rate to the CR loss per deployment. So a Hyperion would tick down 4 times faster than a Lasher. It always feels weird to me the campaign costs of a SO Lasher are higher than that of an SO Hyperion, but you get no in combat benefit for it.
Since it got kindof lost behind Alex coming in with the 'make SO active' notion, I'd like to re-suggest my idea: Make SO something that's fleet-level limited, like automated ships, with a very small cap by default (enough that an SO destroyer with Combat Endurance is hitting maybe 45% max CR), and an increased cap - enough to run a cruiser or two - if you've got the appropriate Industry skill.
And, of course, ships with Ill-Advised Modifications don't count towards the cap.
I don't really want to see SO nerfed in terms of direct combat potential (though removing the always-on zero-flux boost wouldn't be a bad idea), but having it limited so you can't just spam a fleet full of SO Hyperions seems fine.
The thought I had about it - and it's not fully fleshed out, and I'm not fully committed to doing this, so, big disclaimer/grain of salt - is to change SO to function as an active ability instead of a constant passive buff.
The idea being that yeah, if you nerf it, it gets less interesting. But as is it's also not all that interesting because - alright, it does add a playstyle, but that playstyle is very similar for everything and there's not too much to it. If you make it an ability where activating it, say, costs the ship some peak time (and then CR when it's out of PPT) then you can have it be really powerful, and "when do you trigger it" becomes an interesting tactical decision. (What effects exactly it would have is up in the air; in a similar vein to what it currently does, though.)
And then you'd have a new control for "active ability"; something like Neural Transfer would use that control, too, ships would be restricted to just one hullmod that adds an ability (and the door would be open to more abilities like this that can be slotted into ships), etc.
Again, though, this is all fairly half baked; these are just my thoughts at the moment. It's entirely possible none of that would go anywhere. (And if it did, I'd probably leave the original SO in the game and accessible via console...)
Heck, something like +20% deployment points might go a long way towards making it more of a tradeoff.Imo, some combination of these three (DP increase for SO / CR decay rate increase for high deploy cost ships / fleet-level limit for SO) would do wonders for making SO less egregious.
----On a only slightly related note, I still like the idea of linking CR tick down rate to the CR loss per deployment. So a Hyperion would tick down 4 times faster than a Lasher. It always feels weird to me the campaign costs of a SO Lasher are higher than that of an SO Hyperion, but you get no in combat benefit for it.
I'm tempted to just do this, honestly. Setting up a formula to compute the CR loss/sec column based on, say, 60 seconds per 1 deployment's worth of CR (so: using 15%/deployment as a baseline) sounds pretty good. I don't think I've seen the idea before or if I did it didn't register, because it seems really good right now.
And it'd hit the SO Hyperion exactly where it needs it, too - it's getting *way* too much extra effective time out of its CR decay time, AND it's super cheap, comparatively. This would also make high-tech ships/phase ships have a little less time once CR starts ticking, but it wouldn't be a huge change there, and it'd give low-tech ships more post-peak effective time... hmm. Might make sense to use 15% as a "minimum" for that calculation, capping the CR decay to a minimum of 0.25 - I'm not sure that any ships really need *more* post-peak effective time than they're getting right now.
----Since it got kindof lost behind Alex coming in with the 'make SO active' notion, I'd like to re-suggest my idea: Make SO something that's fleet-level limited, like automated ships
It did get totally lost, and it's a really interesting idea! Especially with Ill-Advised not counting; that makes everything come together. You might even make building SO in add Ill-Advised, that'd just tie everything in conceptually. Not sure if it's something I want to do, necessarily, but it's definitely out of the box and seems elegant, so, *thumbs up*!
Might make sense to use 15% as a "minimum" for that calculation, capping the CR decay to a minimum of 0.25 - I'm not sure that any ships really need *more* post-peak effective time than they're getting right now.
I'm tempted to just do this, honestly. Setting up a formula to compute the CR loss/sec column based on, say, 60 seconds per 1 deployment's worth of CR (so: using 15%/deployment as a baseline) sounds pretty good. I don't think I've seen the idea before or if I did it didn't register, because it seems really good right now.I recall this issue being raised as another way low-tech is treated unfair, though it was approached from logistical perspective: burning through the entire CR is 2,5 of a supply cheaper for Hyperion, than for a Lasher, to use the given example. It costs 0,4 supply to recover 1% of a Lasher and 0,375 to recover 1% of a Hyperion. I'm happy to have this addressed for any reason, though.
Have something catastrophic happen if you plan poorly enough to overload while SO is on. Because really, that's got to be one of the events the safeties are there for.
Might make sense to use 15% as a "minimum" for that calculation, capping the CR decay to a minimum of 0.25 - I'm not sure that any ships really need *more* post-peak effective time than they're getting right now.
I'll note that for a typical SO Hyperion with Combat Endurance/Crew Training/Hardened Subsystems, going from 100% to 40%, takes 79.2 + 360=439.2 seconds. Same ship without SO takes 600 seconds. 439.2 * 2 = 878.4 > 600, so it's actually dissipating more flux in 439.2 than the normal ship over 600 (ignoring venting). Safety Overrides is both faster flux and more flux possible per fight.
(... this makes me wonder about putting Delicate Machinery on the Hyperion...)That would speed up CR decay significantly even with slower decay mods. Whenever I run out of PPT with Ziggurat (or other phase ship), CR seems to decay too fast even with Combat Endurance and Hardened Subsystems.
Delicate Machinery would make Hyperion rely less on time granted by CR decay. Maybe extend Hyperion's PPT to 180 to offset faster decay from Delicate Machinery. SO cuts PPT, but not CR decay.
Can we just ban Hyperion from getting SO instead?
Aha, ok, ok, I think I do see. It's 240 seconds base, and you're multiplying this by (1 + .25 (CE) + .25 (HS)) = 1.5, right? Except this is not how that works, both CE and HS modify the rate of CR decay and are multiplicative with each other to boot.
For example, if it was just one of them, 240 would not be multiplied by 1.25 - rather, it would be multiplied by (1 / 0.75), which is 1.33 - it's actually better than what your calculation gives. For both, the rate would be multiplied by around 0.56, so a (1 / .56) multiplier for the time it takes.
No, random exceptions to the rule are bad game design.
Maybe block Safety Override for ships with Delicate Machinery. It is already blocked for capitals and civilians. Phase ships' CR decays fast even with slower decay mods. Consider ships with Delicate Machinery too fragile to handle Safety Override.
If Hyperion gets Delicate Machinery, and Safety Override is incompatible with Delicate Machinery, then Hyperion simply cannot use Safety Override.
SO on the Hyperion is really an edge case because no other ship system is tied to the 0-flux boost. Going from “can teleport under ideal circumstances” to “can teleport at will” is a fundamental shift in how it operates. That’s not a fault of SO being overpowered so much as it is the Hyperion’s system mechanic. If the Hyperion had different teleport rules (say, “under 50% flux”), the difference between an SO and a non-SO ship would be far less extreme. Likewise, if SO didn’t give the permanent boost. All I’m saying is that the Hyperion shouldn’t be the poster child when it comes to SO balance: it’s a completely different ship with it.
Well that is what I get for relying on my memory and not doing a test in game before posting. For some reason at the time I was thinking it was 25% "slower" as in taking longer, but clearly that was a mistake. Thank you and Vanshilar for the corrections.
To be honest, if there was a significant change in mechanics, tying CR decay rate, there would need to be a general pass over all ships anyways to update their CR per deployment, and a look at whether delicate machinery was necessary anymore. You'd need to test if you were going too far, or not far enough on each ship. Probably not something for the next release.
Certainly if you raised phase ships CR cost per deployment and made this change, then delicate machinery would no longer be needed on them. It also makes sense thematically, since if they're that delicate, it should take more out of them after each deployment, even if they stay in PPT. Campaign layer wise, all it would really change was how many fights in a row phase ships can do (and maybe repair time, although you could bump up CR per day restored if needed).
Maybe a longer cooldown and removing the zero-flux requirement; something along those lines.Even longer? Current cooldown is enough to make it annoying. And the cooldown nerf was done specifically because of SO, anyway!
I do like how Delicate Machinery clearly signposts that, hey, this is meaningfully different, though...Well, we don't have a hullmod for flux dissipation different from normal, or manoeuvrability different from normal, or basically everything that's in the stat card, do we?
No, random exceptions to the rule are bad game design.If it was random, there wouldn't be a discussion about Hyperion interacting with SO in a way no other ship does. You could say it's an exceptional relationship.
But this isn't really a random exception to the rule, is it? Hyperion is designed to be a unique hull that bends the rules. It's a prime candidate for rule exceptions if anything. That said, it's always better if exceptions don't have to be made. It's one thing to have to obey the traffic rules, another to have to bend to extra ones when driving an F1. If extra rules have to be made, better to make them invisible or fake them as a buff.Can we just ban Hyperion from getting SO instead?No, random exceptions to the rule are bad game design.
have SO reduce PPT to 0 (multiplying by 0 so boosters do nothing), but have it reduce decay to something reasonable. That way ships with SO immediately begin ticking down and decayingI actually really like this idea just for the thematics of it; it feels like the sort of thing you'd expect overriding safety systems to do to your ship.
If you're using SO on ships that have zero vents then you're doing something wrong. You save OP on cheaper DPS weapons and hullmods that you now don't need since SO gives so much. 2 Heavy Blasters is much much cheaper on OP than an usual high tech build with more mounts filled. And so are Chainguns and HMGs.
Then you also don't need any range enhancing hullmods, nothing for speed or maneuverability, turret turn rate, and probably a few others. This is all being saved by simply installing SO. And sure some ships will be more hungry for OP depending on their mount layout, but most don't care.
The thought I had about it - and it's not fully fleshed out, and I'm not fully committed to doing this, so, big disclaimer/grain of salt - is to change SO to function as an active ability instead of a constant passive buff.
I’m getting the impression that this discussion is becoming an extremely polarizing contest between newer players who want an easy-to-start strategy for dipping their toes into the game and combat…
…before slowly graduating to the more hard-core players who are digging into deeper options for the tougher ships and a more challenging combat game…
…and the communication between the two is getting close to breaking down big-time.
Where it might become more productive is:
* start with X to get used to things
* gradually have a play with Y and Z mechanics, get a feel of them - you can always go back to X if the game is whipping you or you just want a more chill game playthrough occasionally
* after a certain point, stop using A/B/C ship mods to challenge/force yourself to try new strategies
So from this (naive) perspective, taking X out as a starter option is counterproductive on the whole.
(... this makes me wonder about putting Delicate Machinery on the Hyperion...)
The thought I had about it - and it's not fully fleshed out, and I'm not fully committed to doing this, so, big disclaimer/grain of salt - is to change SO to function as an active ability instead of a constant passive buff.I am very glad that you are considering this as an active ability. It makes a lot of sense to me, lore-wise.
The CR decay reduction from skill/hullmods is what really makes SO annoying in my opinion - it's just a massive increase in time they are on the field.Conceptually the idea of the ship to start breaking down immediately on a combat scenario because you broke the obvious safety features is something i love. What i don't love is that this implementation completely makes the skills related to keeping the ship together null and void. It is not a nice feel if that makes sense. Would personally have the hypothetical active version of SO and burn my ship at my own pace instead.
One possible solution is to increase the PPT time bonus from hardened subsystems and combat endurance, but remove the CR decay reduction. SO already cuts addition PPT time by 2/3 so this proportionally benefits them less, and SO could even gain a normalized/scaling reduction in the same manner that it has for range.
Another possible solution is to remove the CR decay reduction hullmod/skill and have SO reduce PPT to 0 (multiplying by 0 so boosters do nothing), but have it reduce decay to something reasonable. That way ships with SO immediately begin ticking down and decaying: how long they last can be tuned by what their decay rate is. When using or fighting SO ships, the player has an immediate indication of how long they will last (the CR ticking down), and this should normalize how long SO lasts - the decay can be tuned by ship class to make it balanced as opposed to riding off of the 'regular' ship PPT which can vary.