Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rauschkind]

ADF is fine as is.

so i take it you had a real issue with the old improved engines before? if adf is fine now the old version must have  been utterly op and way to cheap.

[intrinsic_parity]

A major speed boost with no penalties is already very strong without any additional burn benefits. I also don't think it was 'utterly OP', it's just problematic to have campaign and combat boosts on the same hullmod in general. You want the option of choosing campaign and combat boosts separately.

It's fine if some hullmods are a bit more niche, and it's also fine if you never use some hull mods, as long as there is some objectively good use for them IMO. That also doesn't mean I don't think a cheaper +1 burn hullmod would be useful.

[Locklave]

A major speed boost with no penalties is already very strong without any additional burn benefits.

It's OP cost is it's penalty.

[intrinsic_parity]

A major speed boost with no penalties is already very strong without any additional burn benefits.

It's OP cost is it's penalty.

Unstable injector has a speed boost with a pretty significant range penalty and costs 5/10/15/25. I don't think that is a terrible deal. Based on that cost, the speed boost alone with no range penalty is already worth most of the 8/16/24/40 OP of ADF, so yeah, it would be pretty unbalanced to have a speed boost with no downside plus a major burn bonus. Not to mention the fundamental issues with combing campaign and combat bonuses in a single hullmod.

[Null Ganymede]

Having a single burn 9-10 cruiser/capital is amazing early on. It's an anchor that gives your SO frigates/destroyers a massive confidence boost.

ADF rocks just because of that.

[Flunky]

For campaign quality of life, reduced logistics needs, and greater strategic flexibility, I generally run drive fields on all my <9 burn vessels. It's nice to have a fleet with big vessels that can still pick & choose engagements, hide in that nearby asteroid field, or catch a fleeing fleet and go guns blazing.

Admittedly I tend to only run with 0-2 capital vessels, but it's nice to be able to have a generalist fleet that can either bust stations or go on expeditions without needing to swap out too much of it.

[Locklave]

A major speed boost with no penalties is already very strong without any additional burn benefits.

It's OP cost is it's penalty.

Unstable injector has a speed boost with a pretty significant range penalty and costs 5/10/15/25. I don't think that is a terrible deal. Based on that cost, the speed boost alone with no range penalty is already worth most of the 8/16/24/40 OP of ADF, so yeah, it would be pretty unbalanced to have a speed boost with no downside plus a major burn bonus. Not to mention the fundamental issues with combing campaign and combat bonuses in a single hullmod.

I was replying to the first part not the possibility of combat bonuses, which I agree would be absurd. The +2 burn speed alone does not need a downside because it's already overly costly. It's not very strong currently, it's functional and the only way to make ships like the Venture viable early game without making your fleet crawl. Late game it's completely replaced by the Ox.

You seem to be suggesting it's current form requires downsides. I'd argue the campaign screen hullmods that require 1 of the 2 limited dock slots are underpowered compared to the combat ones.

[Daynen]

Personally, I find a sustained burn of 18 entirely acceptable for most uses, especially since this allows me to hack nav buoys to hit 20 in a system if needed.  I used to chafe slightly at ADF but still found it worth it to keep the ships I wanted while not suffering hideous travel speeds.  Now with built-in mods, ADF costs 0 OP, freeing up that whopping 40 points for those slow capitals to pack on the firepower or extra flux.  Given that I also tend to like navigation for that extra +1/+2 speed, I really only need my ships to be 8 burn or higher, which considerably shortens the list of ships that need ADF for me.  I really don't even use Oxen anymore... although, I haven't tried built-in mods on THOSE yet either...hmmm.

[Low Settings]

I didn't read through 4 pages but if your slowest ship is atleast base burn 12 (augmented drive fields ok, navigation not ok, ox tug not ok) you can clean disengage any random encounter. All they can do is harry you a little bit.

[Scorpixel]

How about reducing the OP cost in exchange of increased sensor profile and maybe incompatibility with insulated engines?
Right now it's possible to bypass the large drawback entirely through S-modding (still at the price of another combat S-mod, but very powerful in early-midgame).

[AcaMetis]

How about reducing the OP cost in exchange of increased sensor profile and maybe incompatibility with insulated engines?
Right now it's possible to bypass the large drawback entirely through S-modding (still at the price of another combat S-mod, but very powerful in early-midgame).

I think that option is called "buy two Oxen", and I don't feel like ADF needs a nerf like that. Yes, it's a major savings if you s-mod it but that's an s-mod slot you're dedicating to campaign QoL, not something that increases a ship's combat performance.

[Scorpixel]

How about reducing the OP cost in exchange of increased sensor profile and maybe incompatibility with insulated engines?
Right now it's possible to bypass the large drawback entirely through S-modding (still at the price of another combat S-mod, but very powerful in early-midgame).

I think that option is called "buy two Oxen", and I don't feel like ADF needs a nerf like that. Yes, it's a major savings if you s-mod it but that's an s-mod slot you're dedicating to campaign QoL, not something that increases a ship's combat performance.

Tugs still cost a lot of fuel to run and you need two of them just to get back to 20burn, you are however right that it is awfully similar.
Of course late game CA/BB would never have drive fields when actually useful hullmods can be used, especially when the place taken by tugs wouldn't be useful with combat ships anyway due to unofficered ships being useless in most situations.

Also on the side that the OP demanded by ADF is absurd when top tier utility mods like overhaul, insulation and solarshield are dirt-cheap.

[Razor Feather]

I think its fine where it is. It lets you get a solid core for an exploration fleet without sacrificing as much on the logistics side of things as spamming tugs, but at the cost of making that central ship somewhat less powerful than others of its size, essentially letting you meet the next size up of ships half way. If its cheap enough that throwing it on each ship when you have 3 or 4 capitals in the fleet isn't a major drawback, then it would remove a lot of the decision making that can go into sizing up the top end of the fleet.