By my reckoning, this puts DTC at -/-/35/50 percent range increase, and ITU at a 10/20/40/60 percent range increase. On cruisers and capitals, this puts ITU at "must-have" and DTC at "I don't have ITU available".
- Dedicated Targeting Core: reduced cost
- Integrated Targeting Unit:
- Reduced cost to match DTC
- Slightly increased range bonus for cruisers (+5%) and capital ships (+10%)
we had several similar suggestions already in various places, like mine here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11479.0), but Alex seems to really dislike the idea of built-in range bonuses across the board. mostly i think it boils down to: some loadouts should still be able to forgo the range bonuses, but doing that with the current ordnance point and hullmod system would be awkward and/or lead to some issues.
...Am I missing something really obvious?no, DTC is objectively useless when you have access to ITU. but DTC is available by default, while ITU needs to be unlocked through skills in the current campaign, and likely through a modspec item in 0.8.
DTC starts out unlockedwe had several similar suggestions already in various places, like mine here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11479.0), but Alex seems to really dislike the idea of built-in range bonuses across the board. mostly i think it boils down to: some loadouts should still be able to forgo the range bonuses, but doing that with the current ordnance point and hullmod system would be awkward and/or lead to some issues.
It would be nice if there was a more obvious reason to pick DTC over ITU. As it is, I was looking at the two of them closely in my current campaign save while loading out a ship, and realised that I could see no difference between them in bonuses or cost, except that DTC can only be put on cruisers and capitals...
...Am I missing something really obvious?
we had several similar suggestions already in various places, like mine here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11479.0), but Alex seems to really dislike the idea of built-in range bonuses across the board. mostly i think it boils down to: some loadouts should still be able to forgo the range bonuses, but doing that with the current ordnance point and hullmod system would be awkward and/or lead to some issues.I'm surprised I forgot about that topic. I even posted in it.
...Am I missing something really obvious?no, DTC is objectively useless when you have access to ITU. but DTC is available by default, while ITU needs to be unlocked through skills in the current campaign, and likely through a modspec item in 0.8.
DTC starts out unlocked
Anyway, the thing that separates my idea from yours is that some loadouts will forgo the majority of the range bonuses but still be left with something. It's not baked in on every ship, just cruisers and capitals.that might be a step in the right direction, but even then most cruiser and capital loadouts would want ITU, so i don't think it would solve the issue -- that being that there's a hullmod that the game is balanced around being used in most loadouts, where not having it is the exception.
As I said in a topic I started similar to this, what if the DTC became a ship system and generated some type of flux when it is on?The AI doesn't do all that well with constant flux buildup, especially hard flux
Not sure about whether it should be hard flux or soft flux, as they would both alter gameplay mechanics in different ways (certainly for the AI). I feel like the Conquest would benefit greatly from this sort of ship system, as it would allow it to broadside something such as an Onlsaught (which I find difficult to do without dying) and remain safe. In this situation it would be hard flux generation, otherwise it could just poke things at a safe distance forever xD.
- Make DTC a free built-in for (most) cruisers and capitals. Give it a bonus like -/-10/20 percent range. Exclude it from non-combat ships as desired.
- Make ITU compatible with DTC, for a slightly more modest 10/20/30/40 percent range increase. Total range increase would still be 40/60 for ships with both.
The question must be asked then: what does this system provide as a benefit to the player experience? There isn't really a decision being made here, is there? You just need the hullmod to be effective. There is not an alternative strategy to think about or consider. It seems to me that there isn't any benefit to the system then, but there are several potential pitfalls that could be a detriment to the overall fun of using capitals and cruisers under the right circumstances.
There are some builds that work without DTC/ITU and can make use of the extra OP elsewhere; those would suffer. Off the top of my head: carriers, missile boats, SO builds, possibly UI builds now that UI gives -25% range - all would have less OP to work with, and could become non-viable as a result.
Now, to derail this thread a bit: the Paragon gets a built-in "Advanced Targeting Core" in 0.8a, at the cost of losing a few OP. It grants +100% range.
Now, to derail this thread a bit: the Paragon gets a built-in "Advanced Targeting Core" in 0.8a, at the cost of losing a few OP. It grants +100% range.
The Paragon reminds me of a castle, whereas the Onslaught could be seen as a monstrous armoured vehicle.
This is why Onslaught with max skills is better than everything at killing fleets, even better than Paragon, because Onslaught has superior mobility (with Burn Drive), superior shot range (range 900+ weapons beat 600-700 used by Paragon's energy weapons), and the best PD in the game to munch all the small stuff.Now, to derail this thread a bit: the Paragon gets a built-in "Advanced Targeting Core" in 0.8a, at the cost of losing a few OP. It grants +100% range.
I don't think that would derail anything, whilst people will believe that that is unbalanced (and arguably it could be), this fits the Paragon's role. It's not a mobile ship unlike the Conquest or Onslaught. The Paragon reminds me of a castle, whereas the Onslaught could be seen as a monstrous armoured vehicle. This range boost is really good, as it encourages a Paragon to sit there with its fortress shield and outrange ships in 1v1s.
Now, to derail this thread a bit: the Paragon gets a built-in "Advanced Targeting Core" in 0.8a, at the cost of losing a few OP. It grants +100% range.What the f- death by random tachyon lance
lolNow, to derail this thread a bit: the Paragon gets a built-in "Advanced Targeting Core" in 0.8a, at the cost of losing a few OP. It grants +100% range.What the f- death by random tachyon lance
Now, to derail this thread a bit: the Paragon gets a built-in "Advanced Targeting Core" in 0.8a, at the cost of losing a few OP. It grants +100% range.What the f- death by random tachyon lance
Does The ATC stack with DTC or ItU?The question must be asked then: what does this system provide as a benefit to the player experience? There isn't really a decision being made here, is there? You just need the hullmod to be effective. There is not an alternative strategy to think about or consider. It seems to me that there isn't any benefit to the system then, but there are several potential pitfalls that could be a detriment to the overall fun of using capitals and cruisers under the right circumstances.
There are some builds that work without DTC/ITU and can make use of the extra OP elsewhere; those would suffer. Off the top of my head: carriers, missile boats, SO builds, possibly UI builds now that UI gives -25% range - all would have less OP to work with, and could become non-viable as a result.
Now, to derail this thread a bit: the Paragon gets a built-in "Advanced Targeting Core" in 0.8a, at the cost of losing a few OP. It grants +100% range.
Does The ATC stack with DTC or ItU?
Does The ATC stack with DTC or ItU?
Definitely, absolutely, positively not.
... unless there's a bug. Which I don't think there is, but you never know.
Does The ATC stack with DTC or ItU?
Definitely, absolutely, positively not.
... unless there's a bug. Which I don't think there is, but you never know.
you can't have both Augmented Engines and Unstable Injector on a ship, you can have either one of them and Safety Overrides working together. That made for some lightning-fast vessels... :oboth of these are being changed in 0.8 anyway, with AE being only for increasing burn speed, and UI being the only combat speed hullmod (aside from SO, which is a combination of different things), and at the cost of some weapon range (-25% iirc) rather than vulnerable engines.
you can't have both Augmented Engines and Unstable Injector on a ship, you can have either one of them and Safety Overrides working together. That made for some lightning-fast vessels... :o
both of these are being changed in 0.8 anyway, with AE being only for increasing burn speed, and UI being the only combat speed hullmod (aside from SO, which is a combination of different things), and at the cost of some weapon range (-25% iirc) rather than vulnerable engines.