Print

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

[Apophis]

the player is allowed to remove negative cost hullmods even if he doesn't have enough OP, and exceed OP limit

[Alex]

Negative cost hullmods aren't a feature at this time - not a bug. I'll move it to suggestions because that seems more appropriate

[Wyvern]

As long as we're on this topic, would it be too much to ask for the ability to make a hull mod that removes the shield generator from a ship that has shields, or adds one to a ship that doesn't?
(You can make a hull mod that renders the shield useless - just reduce the rate at which it expands to its full arc to zero - but that's not quite the same.)

...I suppose the former would also require some way of asking "is this hull mod legal to install on this ship?", at least if you gave it a negative cost - otherwise it'd represent free ordnance points for hounds and buffalo IIs.  Though, then again, would that really be so bad?

[Alex]

It's a bit non-trivial to implement (actually looked at it a while back). I like the idea in principle - adding a shield to a Hound would be fun - but it takes a back seat to more important things. So, chalk it up as "maybe, at some point"

[bluey101]

...I suppose the former would also require some way of asking "is this hull mod legal to install on this ship?", at least if you gave it a negative cost - otherwise it'd represent free ordnance points for hounds and buffalo IIs.  Though, then again, would that really be so bad?

this idea would allow for a new hull mod for the hound and buffalo II classes

the addition of a shield generator

it would make sense considering having a hull mod to remove the shield generator on other ships

[gauntelakor]

Another thing that comes to mind with negative cost hull mods is actually debuffs. Reinforced bulkheads give +50% hull integrity, ligthened bulkheads give -50% hull integrity allowing you to ram it full of bigger weapons.
That was just an example, but there are still lots of good opportunities to be had there.

[icepick37]

Another thing that comes to mind with negative cost hull mods is actually debuffs. Reinforced bulkheads give +50% hull integrity, ligthened bulkheads give -50% hull integrity allowing you to ram it full of bigger weapons.
That was just an example, but there are still lots of good opportunities to be had there.

This makes me afraid of overwhelming numbers of choices, but then I bet most of that is solvable with player progression. So probably nothing to worry about there.

Moar options! 

[Tarran]

Personally, I am fully supportive of debuffs that give OP. As Icepick said, Moar options.

[Shoat]

Personally, I am fully supportive of debuffs that give OP. As Icepick said, Moar options.

I'm in support of this aswell.
It makes sense to "take out" some part of the ship hull or replace it with a worse part, in order to fit more weapons on or so.

[Vandala]

As long as the debufs are grouped together in a list separate from the buf list I'm ok with it.

[hydremajor]

I have a few ideas too

-Sealling Ballistic\Energetic\Missile points

Allows to completely prevent use of one type of weaponry ship-wide, added OP depends on the size of the points sealled

Small = 10 OP

Medium = 20 OP

Large = 30 OP

- Enhanced Flux exhausts Type E\B\M cost = none

Allows to replace weapons points ship-wide with much more bulkier Flux dissipation devices, flux dissipation enhancement depends on size of points used

- Reactor Re-tooling type A

Allows ship to use the Engine boost while flux remains under 30%
Prevents the "Supercharged" state

- Reactor Re-tooling type B

Allows ship to achieve "Supercharged" state when Flux reaches 30%
Prevents the "Engine Boost" state

- Reactor Re-tooling type C

Cuts flux generation when firing weapons by 50%
Prevents "Supercharged" and "Engine Boost" states

May sound overkill here but you get the idea...

[BillyRueben]

Again, I still don't think that it is a good idea to get more OP from an unused weapon slot. You are already saving OP by not using it, so why would the game give you more still for nothing?

Also, the addition or removal of shield generators scares me. If it was added to the game, removing your shield generator would have to give you a ton of OP, since it is a massive defensive debuff, and it wouldn't be worth it otherwise. And on the other side, adding a shield generator would also have to take a ton of OP. I can already see Lashers getting turned in to flying railguns.

As it stands, if I wanted "moar options", I'd rather see the addition of more ships.

[Catra]

because you're not just sealing off a single port, you're disallowing the use of the entire size and type throughout the ship. this is hilariously crippling to most ships, as most of their PD or primary firepower comes from one type of slot.

meh, most of the time i dont even remember to raise shields. just stack the armor (sometimes dont even do that....) and yell come at me bro!  if i'm not woefully out numbered or out tonned, and if i dont make a strategic mistake(IE: an assault order on the map where the enemy deathball is also moving towards, want to thin it out abit by waiting on the other side of the map.), i come out just fine. for removal of shields from tri-tachyon vessels, generally thats ok, as they can extend their laser weapons to well over that of everything short of a hypervelocity driver, and most of them can outrun everything short of a hound, and with aug engines, can outrun thunder fighters. so in all cases removal of shields can far outweigh the cost of it not being there.
i assume you mean hounds. and with that i say meh, they are very, -very- good at escaping retaliation fire and dont really need shields to begin with, atleast i wouldnt choose shields over aug engines.

[icepick37]

As it stands, if I wanted "moar options", I'd rather see the addition of more ships.

Yeah I'm with you there, but eventually all the ships will be in. Then what?    Plenty of room for more options after that.