Missile racks in particular was one of my favorites on Gryphons.
I just hope that the high res sensors effect gets changed. Unless the increased vision range grants the AI to make better decisions or something else that I'm not seeing, it seems like a waste of a story point to me. I'd rather see a paltry bonus to weapon range (5,10%?) since it's the opposite to glitched sensor array. That or a slight increase to missile speed/maneuverability since the sensors helps breakthrough enemy ECM or something. Probably good reasons why neither of these were the case thoughMy guess is that the next update will finally give us an opportunity to flank the enemy from the sides (as the engine supports it right now) and the increased line of sight will help with finding certain annoying ships.
Alex said that ships that come with built-ins (not smods) won't receive the penalties. So your gryphons will be unaffected at least. I'm not glad to see the penalties personally, but I understand why they're being added.Yeah you're right, but I kinda wanted to replace them with new missile cap ship. Do they also come with them preinstalled? Judging by the screenshot it doesn't seem so.
My guess is that the next update will finally give us an opportunity to flank the enemy from the sides (as the engine supports it right now) and the increased line of sight will help with finding certain annoying ships.
Right now the point where you can flank the enemy is when you can just auto-resolve it.
Do they also come with them preinstalled? Judging by the screenshot it doesn't seem so.
I just don't like the idea of s-mod penalties. S-modding shouldn't make things worse, it feels bad conceptually. Top tier hullmods could use no bonus instead, and everything else get bumped up accordingly.I'd be more keen on that too, but there are a lot of hullmods and it is already rather crazy that Alex is slapping another significant layer of combat balancing/tweaking onto the pile.
I just don't like the idea of s-mod penalties. S-modding shouldn't make things worse, it feels bad conceptually. Top tier hullmods could use no bonus instead, and everything else get bumped up accordingly.Pretty much how I feel. Like game punishes me for no reason.
If you wanted a PD bonus, wouldn't you simply built in IPDAI instead of gyros?
just having story points add X OP to the ships, depending on size, would be simpler and easier to work withPretty much. This feels like trying to put out a dumpster fire with a Rube Goldberg machine that happened because of another overcomplicated system which will probably introduce another dumpster fire.
I think it could be fun, since it seems everyone is always putting in S-mods (myself included) doing something to promote other behaviour is good for variety.
Basically all I see here is a nerf to the player fleet(since enemy ships very rarely have S-mods)Don't forget that special hard bounty with all s-modded ships which will also be weaker (but not easier obviously). Wooo hoooo
EDIT: It's paradoxical when developers try to fight min maxing by adding another mechanic which will get, wait for it, min maxed as well.
(would there be this much weeping and gnashing of teeth if EMR debuff was -10% RoF?)
If anything, +25% to Frigates is a bigger deal than EMR nerfs. As far as I remember, nothing in the game increases damage to Frigates. That means Capitals can now swat down smaller ships easier for little OP cost. Why isn’t that getting more attention?
-50% missile ROF seems like a very high penalty for saving 5 OP (cruiser size). I'm assuming that, say, ITU, won't have any penalties and you can just S-mod that instead.
"oh but you only build in the most expensive hullmods" which is a problem why exactly?I'm trying to understand that as well. Sure it was discussed a couple of times but never did it appear as an issue for the game. Think even Alex defended that system (obviously) when it was first introduced, since you're committing to a hullmod. But now it seems the Missile Autoloader hullmod made him introduce a new mechanic, which is ughhh, problem with the hullmod clearly then.
I'm worried about Hardened Shield - it got nerfed last patch, with no matching reduction in OP cost, making it only worth using with s-modding (or on ships that just have oodles of OP, like the Paragon)... but I'll bet it's getting an extra nerf to being s-modded, because it's still one of the highest OP-cost hullmods...
Now the power ceiling is way, way lower and still we're getting nerfs to the S-Mod system, even though it is itself a lower-power replacement of the previous bonus system. I don't see why it needs this nerf and I'll probably try to mod it out of my game if it happens. I don't need my Annihilator racks to fire at half RoF and make it impossible to actually empty themselves over the course of an engagement.
... "oh but you only build in the most expensive hullmods" which is a problem why exactly?
... only to see dev time spent ...
Oh, nice! A slight buff from current patch, there. Huzzah.I'm worried about Hardened Shield - it got nerfed last patch, with no matching reduction in OP cost, making it only worth using with s-modding (or on ships that just have oodles of OP, like the Paragon)... but I'll bet it's getting an extra nerf to being s-modded, because it's still one of the highest OP-cost hullmods...
It's 20%, 5/10/15/25 OP cost, and no bonus or penalty.
The discord theorized the 3 mods likely hit with the smod penalty are EMR, Missile Autoloader and heavy armor
... what about adding or subtracting OP based on the mods cost? When I was trying to figure out what to put in as my third S-mods on my ships I was trying to balance out something I'd want permanently that was also higher in cost, but what if say building in something Expensive like the incredibly bulky HA permanently "reserved" some of your OP for it, but was still cheaper and something cheap and lightweight could add to your total OP instead and the difference was just based on the average cost of hullmod as, for capitals, a fair number of them hover around the 15, 20, 25 range? This way Heavy armor isn't necessarily a given because it'd still cost OP, just less, and be expensive relatively whereas if you always wanted say Accelerated Shields so that they always raise on time as you need it, then it can add some OP your way such that every S-mod guarantees a strict X amount of additional OP regardless of cost.
I mean even if there was a penalty for a single hullmod in the whole game, I'd still ask the same question. Why add such a system to "promote variety" when meta players always find a way to min max something. So with these 30 hullmods that get bonuses, players will no doubt find a combination that makes each ship get the biggest benefit from it. I know this is oversimplified but I just want to show how in the end, not much will change, except people will need to read a whole lot more.
Going back to the penalties, it's such a weird way to nerf strong hullmods. If Autoloader is so broken, make it innately have a long delay between missiles (since small missile fire pretty fast). Make EMR lower missile damage by 10%. Heavy Armour is honestly fine and situational, and I still don't get why it has that maneuverability penalty (it's the skills making armour ships very strong).
Heavy Armor already has a maneuverability malus baked-in. S-modding adds another debuff? May I ask what it is before overreacting? ;)
Heavy Armor already has a maneuverability malus baked-in. S-modding adds another debuff? May I ask what it is before overreacting? ;)
The penalty is a bit higher (25%) and moved entirely to the s-mod effect :)
It's also slightly odd that the Gryphon specifically is spared from the penalty, when Gryphon is per Vanshilar's simulation testing far and away more powerful than other cruisers:Dear lord I completely forgot about this. The most obvious broken contender gets an easy escape.
Btw can't believe there's a problem with s-modded EMR and Heavy Armour while SO is still a thing in the game. The single most braindead part of the game.
Heavy Armor already has a maneuverability malus baked-in. S-modding adds another debuff? May I ask what it is before overreacting? ;)
The penalty is a bit higher (25%) and moved entirely to the s-mod effect :)
In each case building in Hardened Shields instead of EMR is equivalent to installing a 15 OP hullmod that gives +100% missile fire rate. This hullmod seems like you would install it on quite a few ships.
It's also slightly odd that the Gryphon specifically is spared from the penalty, when Gryphon is per Vanshilar's simulation testing far and away more powerful than other cruisers: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25686.msg383303#msg383303
Going into this then, is there going to be a way to lookup effects of hullmods and their S-mod bonuses and maluses? Currently, as it stands I can codex up the effects of Ship systems, which are already available on their ship card, but can't do the same for hullmods and have to rely on knowing the hullmod at all or having a ship with it built-in to figure what's happening with it and if the S-mod effects are going to potentially be significant I'd like to be aware of what they are going into combat.
Not specifically a part of the whole topic but it could be one day when it gets reworked.
Btw can't believe there's a problem with s-modded EMR and Heavy Armour while SO is still a thing in the game. The single most braindead part of the game.
I tend to agree with you on s-modding sub-bonus/malus but what is your point about SO ?
In each case building in Hardened Shields instead of EMR is equivalent to installing a 15 OP hullmod that gives +100% missile fire rate. This hullmod seems like you would install it on quite a few ships.
Hmm - that makes it seem like it's in the right ballpark, at least, no? That theoretical hullmod needs to be in the "sometimes worth it" category. If it's a no-brainer, then the penalty is too large, and if it's never worthwhile, then the penalty is too small. Still, maybe 33% might be a better number. I'll mess around with it!
QuoteIt's also slightly odd that the Gryphon specifically is spared from the penalty, when Gryphon is per Vanshilar's simulation testing far and away more powerful than other cruisers: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25686.msg383303#msg383303
For an alternative perspective on this: the Gryphon got EMR built-in because it was an absolute no-brainer of a hullmod to put on the ship. And also to then s-mod it in. Now that there are more factors, I wonder if the Gryphon shouldn't lose built-in EMR, and get some ordnance points in exchange - maybe 15 or so. Then you'd have the option of for-OP EMR, or build-in with a penalty; an actual decision to make. (The actual nerf to the ship would be equal to the difference in the OP it gains and the cost of built-in EMR that it would lose.)
Heavy Armor already has a maneuverability malus baked-in. S-modding adds another debuff? May I ask what it is before overreacting? ;)
The penalty is a bit higher (25%) and moved entirely to the s-mod effect :)
Another small thing i want to bring up:
I almost never use those points for anything else than buffing my fleet / officers
Very very very rarely it makes sense to use them for doing "something cool" or story related, i rather just buff my ships and later officers. For me the system is degraded into just grindable fleet buff points, that AI fleets do not even use for the most time, so it creates a bigger gap between me as a player, and most faction fleets.
I think it would feel better overall if we had less base smods, and factions used them a bit too.
Nah, what will change is i play slightly less risky with what i engage, and hold 2SP as backup, and still use all rest of them to buff my fleet / officersAnother small thing i want to bring up:
I almost never use those points for anything else than buffing my fleet / officers
Very very very rarely it makes sense to use them for doing "something cool" or story related, i rather just buff my ships and later officers. For me the system is degraded into just grindable fleet buff points, that AI fleets do not even use for the most time, so it creates a bigger gap between me as a player, and most faction fleets.
I think it would feel better overall if we had less base smods, and factions used them a bit too.
I was like you, and then I started playing in Ironman. It changes the game and the way you value your story point ! It makes every fight more important and the game lasting a lot longer, forcing you to change your fleets avec some looses and be careful about colonisation. I think it is the way the game is meant to be play.
If it's not already in the dev build, giving Dedicated Targeting Core's an s-mod bonus of +5/10% range (so it matches ITU) is a great QoL boon for if you get cruisers earlier on before you find ITU, since it lets you smod in a range bonus without it potentially being a permanent downgradeBest idea I've heard all year.
If it's not already in the dev build, giving Dedicated Targeting Core's an s-mod bonus of +5/10% range (so it matches ITU) is a great QoL boon for if you get cruisers earlier on before you find ITU, since it lets you smod in a range bonus without it potentially being a permanent downgradeI'd almost rather see it get some other small bonus for being s-modded - maybe 15% reduced recoil or 10% increased projectile speed - just so that it's not a complete clone of ITU (and so that finding that rare ITU modspec is still exciting.)
If it's not already in the dev build, giving Dedicated Targeting Core's an s-mod bonus of +5/10% range (so it matches ITU) is a great QoL boon for if you get cruisers earlier on before you find ITU, since it lets you smod in a range bonus without it potentially being a permanent downgradeI'd almost rather see it get some other small bonus for being s-modded - maybe 15% reduced recoil or 10% increased projectile speed - just so that it's not a complete clone of ITU (and so that finding that rare ITU modspec is still exciting.)
But you're right that it should definitely get something.
If it's not already in the dev build, giving Dedicated Targeting Core's an s-mod bonus of +5/10% range (so it matches ITU) is a great QoL boon for if you get cruisers earlier on before you find ITU, since it lets you smod in a range bonus without it potentially being a permanent downgradeI'd almost rather see it get some other small bonus for being s-modded - maybe 15% reduced recoil or 10% increased projectile speed - just so that it's not a complete clone of ITU (and so that finding that rare ITU modspec is still exciting.)
But you're right that it should definitely get something.
The penalty is a bit higher (25%) and moved entirely to the s-mod effect :)rn heavy armor penalty is 10%, right? increasing that to 2.5 times of the original is more than "a bit higher"... and the ships that benefit from HA thr most already struggle with manouverability... it feels liable to making Aux thrusters a mandatory bundle with HA, lest you be unable to turn at all...
Actually, as a quick thought. Would we be able to see the S-mod bonuses/penalties when hovering over the hullmods in the add/remove hullmods screen as part of their tooltip?
The twitter teaser picture shows that the hullmod tooltip description includes the s-mod changes, and I'm quite certain that you don't need to go into s-mod menu or s-mod the hullmod beforehand for that to show up, just like in the gamemod that inspired this mechanic.
also, the "middle ground" for hullmod op cost this system is intended to balance around is 25 OP (at capital size), right? EMR is 30 OP. Why is a 33% debuff to such an important stat as rof for a hullmod that is 5 OP over the middle ground even remotely acceptable? like, other people have said, "building in a 25 op hullmod instead of EMR is equivalent to a 15 OP hullmod that boosts missile rof by 50%" which "might be more interesting" but 1. i disagree that that wouldn't be a no brainer in most circumstances but more importanly 2. is wrong bc it would be the equivalent of a 5 op hullmod
overall a debuff this severe to a stat this important feels just completely out of whack
On a side note, if you're looking to nerf missiles overall, then applying a rate of fire penalty to both the OP costing expanded missile racks and the s-mod slot version would make more sense than just the s-mod version, perhaps with an OP cost decrease. At which point EMR becomes more of a tradeoff hullmod like Unstable Injector. More speed and less range. While EMR would be more sustain, less DPS (although more overall damage in the long run, but less good at bursting down shields/armor).
The twitter teaser picture shows that the hullmod tooltip description includes the s-mod changes, and I'm quite certain that you don't need to go into s-mod menu or s-mod the hullmod beforehand for that to show up, just like in the gamemod that inspired this mechanic.
Ah okay good. Thanks for letting me know, I remembered the stuff in the lower right, but didn't remember the tooltip display.
I'm going to be completely honest here, for some reason in my head the OP cost for the capial tier was 40. ... oops? I think it got mixed up with heavy armor or something, in the "build this in always" tier. So, I'm really glad you brought this up. Let me change it to 20%, at least for the moment; open to suggestions!For some ship sizes, EMR and Heavy Armor cost the same; 8 for frigates and 20 for cruisers. Only destroyers and capitals are different; 12/16 for destroyers and 30/40 for capitals.
Well, I know what the first s-mod I'm building in for the early game flagship is. I'll take a +25% damage bonus against nearly the entire enemy fleet. :)
Anyways, the way I view this, and the better deserved s-mods, is not a change of the original hullmods, but rather introducing an entirely new set of hullmods that have a different resource cost (s-mod slots instead of OP). Especially when you provide bonuses that you simply cannot duplicate with OP. That are not allowed to stack in the same way Integrated Targeting Unit and Dedicated Targeting Core are not allowed to stack. Those unique bonuses are going to cause competition with hullmods that do not provide additional benefits, irregardless of the OP differences.
...
(In all honesty, I think the current gyros effect is a bit too much! I think - and this applies across the board - that it mostly shouldn't be the main thing you get the mod for. I mean, some amount of that is unavoidable if you have interesting effects, but still...)
If you're balancing against 4/8/15/25 cost OP hullmods as the no benefit or no penalty version, and Advanced Turret Gyro only costs 2/4/6/10, then one could argue the s-mod benefit should be the thing you s-mod it for. Since the s-mod portion is trying to be 2/4/9/15 OP worth in some kind of overall balance sense, which at the cruiser and capital tiers, is higher than the base OP value of the hullmod itself. It's got to entice the player that much, at least in some builds, or the design effort goes to waste as players won't spend one of their precious s-mod slots on it.
This is an interesting idea. S-mods being a permanent addition to ships has always been too good and they need some sort of rework. I'd be down to try it.Please no
That being said...
Personally I like the idea of S-mods staying as they are BUT being temporary instead, lasting only a month or two. You can view it as taking very special preparations before a big station assault or other decisive battle. It brings S-mods more inline with some other current story point uses, like making special maneuvers or negotiating trade deals; They'll be one time decisions focused around a singular event in your character's "story" rather than flat upgrades forever.
This is an interesting idea. S-mods being a permanent addition to ships has always been too good and they need some sort of rework. I'd be down to try it.
That being said...
Personally I like the idea of S-mods staying as they are BUT being temporary instead, lasting only a month or two. You can view it as taking very special preparations before a big station assault or other decisive battle. It brings S-mods more inline with some other current story point uses, like making special maneuvers or negotiating trade deals; They'll be one time decisions focused around a singular event in your character's "story" rather than flat upgrades forever.
also, the "middle ground" for hullmod op cost this system is intended to balance around is 25 OP (at capital size), right? EMR is 30 OP. Why is a 33% debuff to such an important stat as rof for a hullmod that is 5 OP over the middle ground even remotely acceptable? like, other people have said, "building in a 25 op hullmod instead of EMR is equivalent to a 15 OP hullmod that boosts missile rof by 50%" which "might be more interesting" but 1. i disagree that that wouldn't be a no brainer in most circumstances but more importanly 2. is wrong bc it would be the equivalent of a 5 op hullmod
overall a debuff this severe to a stat this important feels just completely out of whack
I'm going to be completely honest here, for some reason in my head the OP cost for the capial tier was 40. ... oops? I think it got mixed up with heavy armor or something, in the "build this in always" tier. So, I'm really glad you brought this up. Let me change it to 20%, at least for the moment; open to suggestions!
For 5 OP, though, 20% feels like it should be alright - perhaps a bit much on the face of it, in pure dps terms. But that's only a concern for some missiles, and in that case giving up 5 OP to build in something else could be fine. And for the more ammo-limited missiles, it wouldn't be that big a deal (nor would it on ships with FMR). So it seems like there are a lot of considerations here which might push it one way or another.
EMR malus% -50 -47.5 -45.0 -42.5 -40.0 -37.5 -35.0 -32.5 -30.0 -27.5 -25.0 -22.5 -20 -17.5 -15.0 -12.5 -10.0
5OP mod bonus% 100 90.5 81.8 73.9 66.7 60.0 53.8 48.1 42.9 37.9 33.3 29.0 25 21.2 17.6 14.3 11.1
EMR malus% -7.5 -5.0 -2.5
5OP mod bonus% 8.1 5.3 2.6
m <- matrix(data=seq(-50,-2.5,2.5),nrow=2,ncol=20,byrow=TRUE)
for (i in 1:length(m[1,])) m[2,i] <- 100*100/(100+m[1,i])-100
round(m,1)That being said...
Personally I like the idea of S-mods staying as they are BUT being temporary instead, lasting only a month or two. You can view it as taking very special preparations before a big station assault or other decisive battle. It brings S-mods more inline with some other current story point uses, like making special maneuvers or negotiating trade deals; They'll be one time decisions focused around a singular event in your character's "story" rather than flat upgrades forever.
Also, any ship with poor burn speed just gets screwed. All capitals would basically have a -40 OP budget or force your fleet to be super slow. There is a very real chance that most story points being repeatedly used just to keep your fleet moving at decent speed, which is just awful and nullifies the whole point. Ships that really want to S-mod Heavy Armor would also be screwed.
Eventually, some slow ships need all the OP they can get for combat stuff, and four tugs and Navigation is the only feasible option for burn 20 with base burn 7 ships. No way I can squeeze Augmented Engines on Ziggurat when I need Phase Anchor and several other hullmods, especially if I use Omega weapons on it.Also, any ship with poor burn speed just gets screwed. All capitals would basically have a -40 OP budget or force your fleet to be super slow. There is a very real chance that most story points being repeatedly used just to keep your fleet moving at decent speed, which is just awful and nullifies the whole point. Ships that really want to S-mod Heavy Armor would also be screwed.
Personally, in regard to speed, I just throw fuel at the problem in the form of 4 Ox Tugs (or 6 if I don't have Navigation), and a Prometheus tanker or two. I'd rather sacrifice credits from my colonies rather than combat power most of the time.
Please think good and hard whether penalties have any place in a storypoint-based ship loadout "elite promotion" kind of system. I'd rather take a hit to the power level of hullmods. I'd rather see their OP costs rejuggled. I'd rather see fewer S-Mods per ship maximum than penalties. Although I think none of these measures are actually necessary in the current state of the game.Heavy Armor used to give less armor (100/200/300/400, I think). Maybe the old weaker Heavy Armor can be brought back so that OP cost can be cheaper. Or just make Heavy Armor ineligible for s-mod like Phase Anchor/Safety Override.
i think its just gonna feel better if the hullmods that are supposed to get debuffs, just get made cheaper instead
I think thats entirely reasonable! To clarify my point from before, I already do think advanced turret gyros is a good buy for its cost (with OP, not S modded), so it wouldn't be entirely for the S mod bonus.
Comparing the "ITU normalized" 2/4/9/15 OP of S modding ATG to integrated point defense AI: if the bonus was 25% to fighters and missiles alone it wouldn't be worth it except for specialized PD ships (like I'd still do it on an officered max PD, max system, max range omen that just swats things down all the time, but thats a really special case), and for late game the +25% bonus to frigates is good but not extreme, especially because skills are already giving scaling damage boosts to larger ship classes. I can see some ships wanting it (slow ships vulnerable to being flanked, hunter/killer flanking frigates) but its not an "always" buy.
It's only early game where frigates make up a large portion of enemy fleets that I'd say the boost is "overpowered"... but in that case its a case of boosting a ship now (with a hard to get resource) in a way that will become less useful over time, which is to me an interesting choice. Its maybe a bit too good, but I think its on the right track.
A 20% drop in rate of fire means that the equivalent 5 OP hullmod gives +25% rate of fire. That does again seem like a no brainer on missile boats since 5 OP is very little, worth 1 PD laser. Can't think of a situation where I would not install that hullmod on a missile ship and just skip 1 PD unless specifically trying to make it fire slower.
Yep, and it's also kinda funny that they get penalized for costing so much OP - not necessarily because they're so powerful that they're worth their OP cost.
I'm not really seeing them being worth taking without being generally negligible - and there's corner cases like the Typhoon where it's situationally crippling. The buffs seem likely to have the opposite problem - how much eg. +frigate damage should I really be getting for a few OP? If it's too much you're just moving the problem to the other end - though since there are more cheap generalist mods than expensive ones there's also more room to end up accidentally making something too good, which also creates some kind of diversity...?
I'm not sure how this is any harder to balance than e.g. the baseline hullmod effects. There'll certainly be some outliers in the initial implementation, but that'll get tweaked in whatever direction is appropriate. I think the balance of these effects is a legitimate concern/topic of discussion, but I don't think it's a fundamental problem, if that makes sense. If the effects are at all in the right ballpark, it's still making more options competitive than the current case.
I think the rate of fire matters, but it's going to be very non-linear for many (most?) missiles. A lot of what matters is just "how much damage is there in a burst/how well does a burst get through whatever PD the current enemy has" and "how much damage is there total". Something like a Gryphon is going to skew this a bit due to doubling the ammo with its system; if the missile ammo lasts for the whole fight, then I think that benefits a higher RoF significantly more.
I think it's also going to be very hard to answer that question with tests because the tests might pick up on things like "the rate of fire is just a bit too low so the PD of this specific enemy gets an extra round of fire in", or "the duration of the overload is just high enough that a second burst of this missile can get in", etc. It seems to me like a lot of the effectiveness may depend on qualitative breakpoints like this.
Funnily enough the very same argument is why I'd argue quantitative testing in a variety of conditions would be useful. That is, because there are so many qualitative factors that if you focus on a subset of them or use a subjective feeling of what should happen then you could argue it any way you want (missiles are used for burst - so sustained DPS doesn't matter; missiles fire a lot, like guns - so sustained DPS does matter; enemy PD decides missile efficiency more than ROF - so ROF doesn't matter that much if the missiles all get shot down; enemy PD decides missile efficiency - so ROF matters a lot so you can overwhelm enemy PD).
I'm sure that people (Vanshilar and Hiruma Kai I believe are the leading experts here) will test it in the sim if the change happens so probably we'll get some numbers someday. If we ever get our program together then that will also give answers about how it works when paired with sets of other weapons, though we're not planning to include PD so it won't be able to answer all questions that the sim can.
... for the OP difference that S-point hull mods are supposed to ignore...
I just don't like the idea of s-mod penalties. S-modding shouldn't make things worse, it feels bad conceptually. Top tier hullmods could use no bonus instead, and everything else get bumped up accordingly.The game is a bit complicated already, regarding numbers. Dev intetionaly hid most of them to make game less intimidating, hopefuly we have mods like TIMID - Too much info, to reveal them again.
... for the OP difference that S-point hull mods are supposed to ignore...
Ah - they're not supposed to! In the current version, it's meant to be balanced out by you getting more bonus XP for building in hullmods that cost less OP. To put it mildly, though, that doesn't work out in practice. (In the new system, you get a flat 75/50/25/0% bonus XP per hullmod, depending on the size of the hull.)
1. every s-mode has the same OP worth 25 (when hullmode is cheaper then rest of OP is added as to thee ship budget)
2. max OP worth s-moded hullmode is 25 (more expensive hulmode canot be s-moded; plain general rule)
(OP prices are for capital size, smaller ship sizes has smaller limits accordingly)
I've thought about this, but that's - well, it'd work, but I think it's a bit boring - it would make "what to build in" irrelevant provided you were certain about the set of hullmods you wanted on the ship. At that point, it'd be simpler to have the SP give you a flat amount of OP; it'd amount to the same thing. Which, I'm aware has been suggested, but I don't think it makes for any interesting decisions!
Well those two lines marked by numbers, are meant use together as one rule. It is not one OR another. It is both OR nothing.1. every s-mode has the same OP worth 25 (when hullmode is cheaper then rest of OP is added as to thee ship budget)
2. max OP worth s-moded hullmode is 25 (more expensive hulmode canot be s-moded; plain general rule)
(OP prices are for capital size, smaller ship sizes has smaller limits accordingly)
Some interesting ideas there. It could be tried. Generally I get the feeling this change is trying to compensate for problems that are already very small. Since SS is a singleplayer game, there is always the luxury of just leaving it be and not having everything be the exact same power level as everything else. This may "feel wrong" but overbalancing tends to result in weird appendixes (as in, the bodypart) to existing systems.
I'll offer an option #3: Every story point added to a ship just increases the ship's OP by 10/15/20 whatever is the correct number for its size. That's it. No more S-Mods. With the same SP limits as before. Could also pay a single SP to add a bonus effect to one of the ship's hullmods.
Which makes me sad that S-mod effects won't apply to normal built-in hullmods like HRS on the Apogee, it feels... wrong that the dedicated sensor ships are worse than the player's Protagonist(tm) jury-rigged ships at sensoring (and whatever else might be built-in and missing out on bonuses).Yeah, this. I mean, I can see built-ins getting extra penalties relative to s-mods for things like Luddic Path ships, or poorly-maintained pirates, but it feels like "missing s-mod bonus effects" should be a d-mod that you can restore off of things...
I like it because it makes optimizing built-in mods more diversified. In the current game version it's always like... ITU, Heavy Armor, Hardened Shields, etc.
If we get buffs on cheaper hull mods, and debuffs on the costlier ones, we will be pushed to mix builds up.
I like it in terms of it adding more interesting effects to hullmods rather than it being a balancing mechanism. Which makes me sad that S-mod effects won't apply to normal built-in hullmods like HRS on the Apogee, it feels... wrong that the dedicated sensor ships are worse than the player's Protagonist(tm) jury-rigged ships at sensoring (and whatever else might be built-in and missing out on bonuses).Something something poorly integrated systems D-mod
Bot issues which are valid desiner headache could be solved by two stright rueles.
The bigger problem is that it felt like this system was constraining what I could reasonably do with new hullmods, by making their OP cost a non-factor. Anything high-impact could not get by with a high OP cost as a balancing factor without also getting the "no build in" tag.
Now, I *also* think that getting a bunch of effects from story points is pretty fun, and am hopeful that this will increase build variety in an actual meaningful way - maybe you'll be able to reach viability with some new options by stacking on some s-mod bonuses just so.Idea that you could balance ~40 hullmods to a point that everyone is worth s-mode becouse of "special side bonus" is massive hubris. I bet my dinner, that in 3 days after update release, there will be topic about list of 3 op hullmodes. Now people s-mode armour,missile rack and itu. After update there will be also 3 hullmodes, maby same, maby some of them different. I just dont understand effort to reach the same result.
On a side note, if you're looking to nerf missiles overall, then applying a rate of fire penalty to both the OP costing expanded missile racks and the s-mod slot version would make more sense than just the s-mod version, perhaps with an OP cost decrease. At which point EMR becomes more of a tradeoff hullmod like Unstable Injector.Wanted to suggest this exact same thing before getting to that post. I feel EMR is too obvious and powerful on too many ships, and missiles without bonus from either racks or officer are anemic in comparison.
The bigger problem is that it felt like this system was constraining what I could reasonably do with new hullmods, by making their OP cost a non-factor. Anything high-impact could not get by with a high OP cost as a balancing factor without also getting the "no build in" tag. Which, I mean - maybe not the biggest problem in the world, but it was getting to be annoying with several hullmods.Well allow me to be cheeky for a bit and point out this issue exists solely because of the story point system allowing built in hullmods. I admit it's far more involved than just bonus OP for each ship but now we need to twist the game around it. And even with this new system, what's going to happen with SO, Phase Anchor and Neural hullmod? SO is going to get changed one day, Phase Anchor is a band aid for phase ships but very strong so I don't see that changing. And I still have zero clue why the need to punish people who invested 5 skill points only to have a permanent malus on the OP pool. It's already a meh tier 5 skill, just be done with the OP cost altogether, no more need to be special then.
Well allow me to be cheeky for a bit and point out this issue exists solely because of the story point system allowing built in hullmods. I admit it's far more involved than just bonus OP for each ship but now we need to twist the game around it.Will give you that esoteric rules are starting to pile up around builtin mods.
I’m trying to point out that spending the story points on Officers is possibly a better return. Comparing an S-modded EMR for one ship vs an Officer with Missile Specialization who can go to any ship as needed. Is an S-modded 3x the number of missiles really that necessary? Will 2x do? Can I fit in 3x without S-modding?S-mods and officers are not exclusive.
A new negative attribute with either be inconsequential (then why bother) or will totally prohibit a mod ever being Smodded - in which case the story point gets used on the next most expensive (or lightweight best bonus) mod on the list. This doesn't fix the meta issue.Practically it's getting something like ~5-15 OP on a capital for a negative effect (cost difference compared to building in a no penalty 25 OP mod).
Make all the ships the same.A new mechanic is probably being added to increase variety if you do not want to handicap yourself.
It's a single player sandbox game.If you genuinely do not understand why single player games need restrictions to make them fun just grab a pencil, some putty or a CAD program.
..
Silly and I roll my eyes at it - especially since it's a single player sandbox game.
... but now we need to twist the game around it.
A new negative attribute with either be inconsequential (then why bother) or will totally prohibit a mod ever being Smodded - in which case the story point gets used on the next most expensive (or lightweight best bonus) mod on the list. This doesn't fix the meta issue.Practically it's getting something like ~5-15 OP on a capital for a negative effect (cost difference compared to building in a no penalty 25 OP mod).
Absolutely no reason for the downsides to be 100% out of line with the cost (similar to the majority of the game's standard weapons and hullmods, those also offer various tradeoffs for OP).Make all the ships the same.A new mechanic is probably being added to increase variety if you do not want to handicap yourself.
It removes some obvious best cases and adds alternatives, that's the opposite of uniformisation.It's a single player sandbox game.If you genuinely do not understand why single player games need restrictions to make them fun just grab a pencil, some putty or a CAD program.
..
Silly and I roll my eyes at it - especially since it's a single player sandbox game.
100% freedom with no rules to get in the way.
This single thing is not the end of the world, by I fear for the future of potential new needless complexities just to satisfy 5% of the player base.
Fair points, although it's funny I'm being perceived as a complainer. I react with hype and happiness to almost every blog post and twitter tease. But when something bothers me, I want to get my opinions across as clear as possible. Hell if I never complained, feedback from me would be useless.This single thing is not the end of the world, by I fear for the future of potential new needless complexities just to satisfy 5% of the player base.
From what ive seen in every other game the real 5%(well, its actually 1-2% usually) of the playerbase are the ones who spend their time in discussion forums getting passionately worried and complaining about any almost meaningless change that happens to their game and the actual 95% don't even know places like this exist and are just gonna see this as a cool update to the game they play.
From what ive seen in every other game the real 5%(well, its actually 1-2% usually) of the playerbase are the ones who spend their time in discussion forums getting passionately worried and complaining about any almost meaningless change that happens to their game and the actual 95% don't even know places like this exist and are just gonna see this as a cool update to the game they play.Sometimes it feels like every ~1000 hours people flip a coin, on heads the game instantly becomes the worst thing ever :)
This might seem goofy but I believe with the few of us generally concerned and cynical folks, we keep the devs from going berserk and doing something "too experimental". I actually don't know how to explain this phenomenon with words but I know it happens in a lot of games with continued development.100% my impression but I've pinned Alex as mostly being a "smile and nod" type, player feedback is obviously important but wouldn't give it too much credit for the big picture :)
And it still doesn't refute my point that if the maluses are too great most players will just default to the next most expensive OP cost mod Or divert to the "new best" mods with the double buffs/bonuses. And if they are not then they will be inconsequential anyway.The part on how it's a ~5-15 OP tradeoff does exactly that, don't have a simpler explanation.
"Meta" will re-establish itself and it will end up with the same end state where we are now. - except a slightly different.
You are being obtuse
My point in it being a single player game was to point out that if something is a little more powerful than something else - it won't matter much.
No restrictions at all would of course make for a very boring game, actually, it wouldn't be a game it would be a tech demo or some sort of numbers simulation.
The "Same state" will be achieved in the end.
But when something bothers me, I want to get my opinions across as clear as possible. Hell if I never complained, feedback from me would be useless.
This might seem goofy but I believe with the few of us generally concerned and cynical folks, we keep the devs from going berserk and doing something "too experimental". I actually don't know how to explain this phenomenon with words but I know it happens in a lot of games with continued development.
100% my impression but I've pinned Alex as mostly being a "smile and nod" type, player feedback is obviously important but wouldn't give it too much credit for the big picture :)
(In all honesty, I think the current gyros effect is a bit too much! I think - and this applies across the board - that it mostly shouldn't be the main thing you get the mod for. I mean, some amount of that is unavoidable if you have interesting effects, but still...)
I actually think the opposite, that it'd be interesting if some of the s-mod bonuses are stuff that is difficult or impossible to get in other ways.Oh god no. Think it's pretty self explanatory how this would be a bad idea.
You are being obtuse
Please stay away from personal attacks and take a look at the forum rules (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2668.0).
Oh god no. Think it's pretty self explanatory how this would be a bad idea.
You are being obtuse
Please stay away from personal attacks and take a look at the forum rules (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2668.0).
I called him out for purposely misinterpreting the critique I laid at the system, which had nothing to do with him, that he then used (the misinterpretation) to suggest I go play with putty since I didn't know why rules exist in games.
Purposely misunderstanding something can be described as being "obtuse" -it's not a personal attack it's a call out for what happened. "Go play with putty" is a personal attack as it insinuates a lack of cognition. - To which I was responding and clarifying that I understood why rules in games exist.
You warned the wrong comment.
Get called stupid then get warned for telling the person who called you stupid to not call you stupid.
Not to mention this would make the 3 s-mod leadership skill much more important than it is right now. Every single specialised ship will gravitate towards the hullmods which bonus benefits them the best.The notable builtins are EMR, HA, reinforced bulkheads, ITU, hardened shields, ECCM package (probably missing something).
Like Hamakus said, can we stop being rude in a nice way please, there's like 10 previous posts from me that were far more useful than calling out a single post for not stating the obvious.
So here's the obvious part. You want more minmaxing, because this is how you get it. Having unique buffs makes certain hullmods appear strong purely from the bonus part, not the hullmod itself which is backwards game design. Not to mention this would make the 3 s-mod leadership skill much more important than it is right now. Every single specialised ship will gravitate towards the hullmods which bonus benefits them the best. Thus creating the dumbest possible meta we ever had.
In a case where the bonuses are so small it doesn't matter, then there was no point to it in the first place.
My only fear is ending up with too many mechanics and levers that don't add much. There's a word for it but I can't think of it right now.Wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. It's not exactly a word, I admit.
This might seem goofy but I believe with the few of us generally concerned and cynical folks, we keep the devs from going berserk and doing something "too experimental". I actually don't know how to explain this phenomenon with words but I know it happens in a lot of games with continued development.Soviet Womble in one of his DayZ video essays mentioned how people can get attached to what the game could be in the early access, and they don't like if the game towards completion steers in a different direction. I could watch them and see which one was it, but at the moment I'm busy listening to C&C's soundtrack. I hope you understand it's hard to stop.
Thanks, that's pretty much what I meant.My only fear is ending up with too many mechanics and levers that don't add much. There's a word for it but I can't think of it right now.Wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. It's not exactly a word, I admit.
As for the topic of the discussion... My feeling about Heavy Armour manoeuvrability penalty is that this might lead to HA being unviable again, because it makes low-tech ships too sluggish.HA is in a strange-ish place, it's basically a necessity for making full use of low tech.
I was explaining why Vanshillar's idea was not good. I don't even get what's being argued here. The man suggested unique and important bonuses for hullmods, yet it seems your response was aimed at the current changes confirmed from Alex.Post by itself also made sense, didn't notice it's a reply.
that is a thing i dislike here tooMy only fear is ending up with too many mechanics and levers that don't add much. There's a word for it but I can't think of it right now.Wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. It's not exactly a word, I admit.This might seem goofy but I believe with the few of us generally concerned and cynical folks, we keep the devs from going berserk and doing something "too experimental". I actually don't know how to explain this phenomenon with words but I know it happens in a lot of games with continued development.Soviet Womble in one of his DayZ video essays mentioned how people can get attached to what the game could be in the early access, and they don't like if the game towards completion steers in a different direction. I could watch them and see which one was it, but at the moment I'm busy listening to C&C's soundtrack. I hope you understand it's hard to stop.
As for the topic of the discussion... My feeling about Heavy Armour manoeuvrability penalty is that this might lead to HA being unviable again, because it makes low-tech ships too sluggish. Back away too slowly when under heavy fire, turn too slowly to engage other ships effectively.
Imagine for example we take augmented drive - it needs to be S-modded into a lot of civillian ships for "optimum" buildsSee, the trick is that the optimal use of story points on spreadsheet ships is that you don't use any and save them for your combat ships instead.
that is a thing i dislike here tooGotta say that this actually feels flavorful. It makes sense for lo-tech ships to feel outdated, where you're smoothing out the flaws to make the strengths shine. And that you're polishing hi-tech to make them worth the investment.
for high tech you typically just take hullmods and skills to buff their output
but the maneuvrability and armor skills on lowtech feel more like compensating for glaring weakness
Imagine for example we take augmented drive - it needs to be S-modded into a lot of civillian ships for "optimum" buildsSee, the trick is that the optimal use of story points on spreadsheet ships is that you don't use any and save them for your combat ships instead.
By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity
By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity
20-40 OP? I think you're missing the fact that you still get to s-mod another hullmod, potentially the most expensive non-s-modded hullmod. So you're only losing 5/15 OP (cruiser/cap), since the built-ins will be balanced around providing ITU-level value (15/25), which seems like a fair trade for the base heavy armor buff.
By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity
20-40 OP? I think you're missing the fact that you still get to s-mod another hullmod, potentially the most expensive non-s-modded hullmod. So you're only losing 5/15 OP (cruiser/cap), since the built-ins will be balanced around providing ITU-level value (15/25), which seems like a fair trade for the base heavy armor buff.
What does the HRS smod upgrade do exactly? I don't quite get it.By making the heavy armor debuff apply only if smodding, means most lowtech ships are effectively short 20-40OP now, lowering build diversity
20-40 OP? I think you're missing the fact that you still get to s-mod another hullmod, potentially the most expensive non-s-modded hullmod. So you're only losing 5/15 OP (cruiser/cap), since the built-ins will be balanced around providing ITU-level value (15/25), which seems like a fair trade for the base heavy armor buff.
I guess it depends how good the boost is. The HRS bonus doesn't look great, but the advanced gyros look decent
Is the base Heavy Armor hullmod being Debuffed? Or only the S-modded version?Actually, it seems like non S-modded HA is getting buffed by having the negative entirely moved to the smodded version.
What does the HRS smod upgrade do exactly? I don't quite get it.
Unless it's been changed, it would increase the combat vision radius (how far the ship can see in combat) for the ship its attached to. For a fleet, its typically a non-thing unless you wanna see when and what enemy reinforcements arrived but haven't pushed the enemy to their reinforcement zone yet and don't have any fast flankers but otherwise its best use might be built-in on Solo ships for in-combat information if it weren't for the fact that solo ships tend to want to squeeze out as much combat performance as they can.Yes, I agree. With the range of most weapons, adding more vision would probably be a debuff because the user would need to stay further away from the enemy to avoid PPT/CR countdown. Maybe it would be handy for carriers or MIRV users that do have weapons (or fighters) with long enough attack range. For conventional ships, less vision would be a buff by requiring less distance from enemies to avoid the doom clocks.
adding more vision would probably be a debuff because the user would need to stay further away from the enemy to avoid PPT/CR countdown
So, if I want a HA ship with a lot of mobility, I'll eat the cost, and I can S-mod it if I want a long range HA build.Is the base Heavy Armor hullmod being Debuffed? Or only the S-modded version?Actually, it seems like non S-modded HA is getting buffed by having the negative entirely moved to the smodded version.
I thought HA got its penalty reduced when not S-Modded a bit and it gets higher when it isIs the base Heavy Armor hullmod being Debuffed? Or only the S-modded version?Actually, it seems like non S-modded HA is getting buffed by having the negative entirely moved to the smodded version.
I thought HA got its penalty reduced when not S-Modded a bit and it gets higher when it isIt is going from a 10% penalty now to 0% when not S modded and a whopping 25% when S modded...
Oof that's rough.I thought HA got its penalty reduced when not S-Modded a bit and it gets higher when it isIt is going from a 10% penalty now to 0% when not S modded and a whopping 25% when S modded...