Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Balancing Change Ideas  (Read 4688 times)

ubuntufreakdragon

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2020, 02:29:15 AM »

The augmented drive field logistical hullmod could use a combat buff, too.
e.g. +20 max speed in combat +some acceleration. (After all you are using better engines in your ships)
And a smaller Version offering half the boost for halved cost would be nice to speed up cruisers a bit.

How about a XIV Legion Blueprint, as it exists it's unrealistic the Hegemony forgot how to build it.

Allow us to give priority for weapon types as we can do for ship types, for faction fleets and stations, if we know the weapons blueprint.

Converted Hangar could add Carrier Slots based on the hull size, as it's cost increase by it.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 08:40:15 AM by ubuntufreakdragon »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2020, 06:58:33 AM »

Augmented Drive Field (formerly Augmented Engines) used to boost combat speed for many releases, and it (and Unstable Injector when it did not reduce shot range) was a no-brainer hullmod for many ships to take.  Even during 0.8.x, when it penalized shot range but not carrier stats, it was a no-brainer hullmod for carriers.  Currently, it is mostly useful for phase ships that do not care about shot range.  Combat speed hullmods without significant penalties are huge game changers.

I would like a cheaper +1 burn mod that non-civilians could use (and does not stack with ADF).

I would like a Legion14 blueprint just so we have (more) ships that can use Hammer Barrage (and Cyclone Reaper) effectively.  Griffon cannot use it well because it is too fragile to brawl at the frontline.  Legion14 is a sidegrade to normal Legion.  It is not overpowered enough to feel like a special ship.

I prefer Converted Hangar have static OP cost like Operations Center.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 07:00:07 AM by Megas »
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2020, 08:38:08 AM »

I would like a cheaper +1 burn mod that non-civilians could use (and does not stack with ADF).

Yep, that.
Current ADF puts some ships out of consideration simply because they can't hit right Burn speed bracket. For example ADF Paragon at 9 burn (or any other base 7 burn capital) doesn't combine with 8 burn of Conquest/Odyssey, while pushing the latter to 10 is waste of OP.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2020, 08:53:45 AM »

I think the game could use another combat speed hull mod because unstable injector in its current state isn't really useful outside of civilian ships so they can run away faster and maybe phase ships. I would like a +speed Hullmod with a more palatable downside. Something like reduced armor/hull would make sense to me, or even weakened shields, although that one might hurt too much.

It feels to me like the loss of range offsets the benefits of increased speed since you move faster but take longer to get into range (and take damage while you are approaching) which makes balancing that downside pretty challenging.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2020, 09:04:47 AM »

I think the game could use another combat speed hull mod because unstable injector in its current state isn't really useful outside of civilian ships so they can run away faster and maybe phase ships. I would like a +speed Hullmod with a more palatable downside. Something like reduced armor/hull would make sense to me, or even weakened shields, although that one might hurt too much.

It feels to me like the loss of range offsets the benefits of increased speed since you move faster but take longer to get into range (and take damage while you are approaching) which makes balancing that downside pretty challenging.
Well that's the whole point of speed hullmods, speed is such an important stat you really have to pay with something equally important. That's what makes it niche and not a no-brainer choice. Because with your suggestion it's either gonna be an autopick on high tech ships or low tech ones. And if it's a slight nerf to both, then it's gonna be worth on everything lol, even more so on glass cannon like Sunder and Conquest. So yeah that's really a touchy thing in general. I wouldn't want another UI on every ship meta.

+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2020, 09:08:08 AM »

In older releases, Unstable Injector's penalty was quad(?) damage taken to engines, while Augmented Engines doubled repair times.  Did not do much to stop kite-and-snipe of combat ships that could maintain range and speed superiority.  (At the time, fighters were ships and carriers were outfitted as gunships with less guns.)

Current ADF puts some ships out of consideration simply because they can't hit right Burn speed bracket. For example ADF Paragon at 9 burn (or any other base 7 burn capital) doesn't combine with 8 burn of Conquest/Odyssey, while pushing the latter to 10 is waste of OP.
Not to mention various cruisers (with burn 8 ) that cannot comfortably afford Augmented Drive.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2020, 09:46:36 AM »

I think the game could use another combat speed hull mod because unstable injector in its current state isn't really useful outside of civilian ships so they can run away faster and maybe phase ships. I would like a +speed Hullmod with a more palatable downside. Something like reduced armor/hull would make sense to me, or even weakened shields, although that one might hurt too much.

It feels to me like the loss of range offsets the benefits of increased speed since you move faster but take longer to get into range (and take damage while you are approaching) which makes balancing that downside pretty challenging.
Well that's the whole point of speed hullmods, speed is such an important stat you really have to pay with something equally important. That's what makes it niche and not a no-brainer choice. Because with your suggestion it's either gonna be an autopick on high tech ships or low tech ones. And if it's a slight nerf to both, then it's gonna be worth on everything lol, even more so on glass cannon like Sunder and Conquest. So yeah that's really a touchy thing in general. I wouldn't want another UI on every ship meta.

+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.

Is survivability/defense not equally important? Surely you could reduce survivability enough to make an interesting decision and not a no brainer. The point I was trying to make is that losing range offsets the benefits of speed directly in a lot of combat scenarios rather than creating a tradeoff, so the hull mod doesn't really present an interesting decision. If the range penalty was smaller, then it would suddenly become a no-brainer, there's very little middle ground. I think reducing survivability might be a more interesting trade off.

Also, I would say current unstable injector is closer to useless than niche.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2020, 09:56:13 AM »

Is survivability/defense not equally important?
Not even close mate, not even in the same category. You don't need defense if you can evade everything that's a threat to you. By your logic Conquest would be a horrible ship, while in reality that's far from the truth.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Mondaymonkey

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2020, 10:19:37 AM »

Quote
Conquest would be a horrible ship

It is, dude, it is*.



*In AI hands. It is serious threat only in player's hands.
Logged
I dislike human beings... or I just do not know how to cook them well.

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #24 on: June 21, 2020, 10:23:07 AM »

I always seems to come back to the conquest. It has to be the most derisive ship in the game.

I've made in work in AI hands well enough. I feel it most benefits the title of battlecruiser as it isn't quite a battleship, but it's certainly no standard cruiser.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2020, 10:29:41 AM »

I don't get how often people trash AI Conquest but praise Odyssey like the ultimate ship. In my experience AI Conquests do more work and die less despite being cheaper and much easier to find. By cheaper I mean less DP.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2020, 10:40:19 AM »

Is survivability/defense not equally important?
Not even close mate, not even in the same category. You don't need defense if you can evade everything that's a threat to you. By your logic Conquest would be a horrible ship, while in reality that's far from the truth.

No, by my philosophy, the conquest is a reasonably balanced ship (and an interesting and unique one) because speed and survivability can be reasonably traded off... If the conquest was terrible, that would be evidence that survivability was more important than speed and if the conquest was overpowered, that would be evidence that speed is more important than survivability.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2020, 11:20:34 AM »

AI Conquest is good enough.  It can use loadouts I want to use competently and survive.  I prefer it over Onslaught because Conquest is more mobile and Locusts last significantly longer than quad Annihilators.

AI Odyssey, at least the plasma cannon loadout I would use if I pilot it, has a death wish.  It burns into a mob just like Onslaught would, then dies faster because of weaker defenses.  Only if I give it beams and missiles, and maybe autopulse in the rear large, that AI hangs back far enough for its system to not be a suicide move, but such loadouts have less firepower than I want.  I would have less problem with Odyssey if AI was not so suicidally stupid with plasma burn and short-range weapons (like plasma cannons).  Also, even if I use plasma cannons on Odyssey, I need to leave most mounts empty (including the large synergy) to have enough flux to power two plasma cannons for a while and brawl like a battleship, and it is almost as stupid as unarmed carriers.

Quote
Also, I would say current unstable injector is closer to useless than niche.
It is niche.  Great for Harbinger (it needs either Unstable Injector or x4 time shift to be fast enough to outflank enemies), and great for Reaper Afflictor (unfair glass sword wielded by player to assassinate key targets).

Also, Harbinger's Quantum Disruptor has annoyingly short range.  Longer shot range is not very useful if Harbinger cannot drop enemy shields because QD has less range than the guns.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 11:22:21 AM by Megas »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2020, 11:35:38 AM »

+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.
I would not want current ADF weakened to +1.  Sometimes, the +2 ADF is exactly what I need (like if I try to go to the fringe with a single large ship).  However, it would be nice if there was also a cheaper +1 version for non-civilians.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Balancing Change Ideas
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2020, 11:39:46 AM »

+1 to weaker ADF, Mk II capitals may even be decent in early game then.
I would not want current ADF weakened to +1.  Sometimes, the +2 ADF is exactly what I need (like if I try to go to the fringe with a single large ship).  However, it would be nice if there was also a cheaper +1 version for non-civilians.
That's exactly what I said? I'd be mad to suggest a nerf to an already super costly hullmod.

EDIT: To make myself clear, I was simply agreeing with the suggestion of having both options in the game.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 11:43:51 AM by Grievous69 »
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4