Print

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

[Megas]

Not actually sure about the small kinetics - to me they're all very distinct. There's the pretty bad one, the one that'd be ok if its accuracy wasn't terrible, the solid reliable one, and the burst one. (And, hopefully, the first two will be more usable now. I forget if I mentioned it, but the Light ACs got a flux efficiency boost, too.)

With 700 range, sounds like two light ACs may be better than railgun or needler on ships with more mounts than flux can support.  (Sort of like two light mortars are better than one LAG, when both had 600 range.)

[Warnoise]

If there was a specialized low tech destroyer with a large weapon slot I would give it a ship system that adds ion damage to its shots. Something like Ionized ordnance which adds X% of weapon damage per shot as ion damage that spreads through target's engines and weapons if high on flux

[Inhilicon]

Also shield-related, if you are considering a minor nerf to high tech hardened shields hullmod might be part of that.
Something like 15-20% would probably still make it an automatic builtin choice for most ships, but makes armor bricks comparatively stronger.

I have to agree with this. I feel like Hardened Shields is in its own hullmod tier of "amazing", while the rest are either good, average or unimpressive. It lets a high-tech ship's shields turn HIGHER tech or it pushes a low-tech ship's shields into midline levels.

[Sundog]

This all looks great! 
The burn drive change should be a huge improvement for the AI. Gotta admit, I've considered burn drive more of a liability than a boon for quite a while.

[basildazz]

    However, in an attempt to repel the pressure you exert on the 'burn-drive' being a tactical success, I suggest a 'tractor beam' would perform the same function inversely applied as the burn  drive, but I would presume to consider it a high tech weapon more likely applied in an energy weapon mount. However, a low-tech ship system that could be deployed in a 'tractor-like' manner in the combat simulations may possibly be a magnetised hull? - basildazz


Yeah, a tractor beam would probably feel kind of high-tech, though I suppose the visual and sound FX could sell it either way. But in general mobility-interfering systems would be really frustrating to play *against*. This is largely why there aren't any! I did mess around with the idea of an "Interdictor Array" on a phase ship (since they're allowed to be unfair, basically) but that didn't go anywhere too useful. It'd also require an unreasonable amount of cooperation from the AI, more than likely. - Alex

Ok, with nebula, magnets and ion cannons and being over fluxed, a player may never get a turn, so to speak. But to consider the AI deploying some varied tactics, maybe a little 'aggravation' induced by the computer controlled ships is the diversion required to fall prey to a tactic. Altering my suggestion and considering your reasoning on the amendment to the 'burn-drive'. If a low tech ship, has the ability at shorter ranges to deviate the opposition ships in direction, velocity or rotation, then it may (estimating the programming complexity to it's full extent) have a tactic to aim 'safely' away from the main body of the enemy force and disorient them briefly, that other ships may be opportunist.

[pairedeciseaux]

Some theorycrafting about weapon range and ship speed,

Increasing range of LAC, LDAC and LAG to 700 means +16.7% range increase. Compared to 0.95, assuming non-ITU frigate builds, low tech and midline ships will have:

• without Unstable Injector : that +16.7% range boost for those guns (700), unchanged max speed
• with Unstable Injector: almost the same range as non-UI in 0.95 (595), together with +25% max speed boost

So overall in 0.95.1 (or whatever next version will be) you get either longer range (baseline) or higher max speed (if spending OP on UI hullmod). In both cases it shall help compete with the highly mobile high tech frigates using 600-range medium guns.

Lasher with 1 LDAC + 2 LAG or Centurion with 2 LAC + 2 LAG:

• without Unstable Injector : 700 range and 120 max speed
• with Unstable Injector: 595 range and 150 max speed (similar to Wolf)

Kite with 1 LAC:

• without Unstable Injector : 700 range and 140 max speed
• with Unstable Injector: 595 range and 175 max speed (similar to Tempest)

So I could see Unstable Injector becoming a high priority hullmod for some low tech and midline ships/builds in next version, especially for people looking for fast non-SO frigates alternatives.

For reference: having UI in 0.95 lowers 600-range guns to 510.

[Rojnaz]

I don't know if this is the right place to put it but.
Buffalo Mk2 could be a somewhat decent user of damper field as right now it has no shield.
I also think Colossus Mk2 & 3 should have their OP buffed a bit, they are especially difficult to use in combat right now, even using the full buff of auxiliary support.
I mean, Buffalo has 22 OP and Buffalo Mk2 has 70 OP.
Colossus has 55 and both Colossus Mk2 and 3 have 55 OP.

Buffalo Mk2 and Atlas Mk2 are decent in combat for what they are but the Colossus and Prometheus Mk2 are too underperforming even for a converted hull.

[halloween20]

after two days of searching in the forum for infos on this and that, i finally found the new blog ... lol 

the change to the vanguard sounds nice.
but as someone already pointed out the possible problem in using "a lot" of Vanguard to alpha away a lot of ships i thought about a "little" Countermeasure  to this...
why not give a replacement penalty by using that ability. not the normal penalty for loosing the drone and replacing it what gradualy reduces the replacement rate, but a straight -x% the moment the drone explods, or the skill is used to "arm" the bomb...
this will allow for an alpha strike right at the first encounter with enemies, but the repeatable usage of it will dwindle in the heat of the fight where the drones get shot down more frequently.

next to the change of the BD System.
first of all i like the idea to cancel it somewhere allong its duration. as a new player i am still hiting F instead of V sometimes ... 
i think the moment the duration is canceled, the CD will start befor i could reuse it?!
what i would like is a "steady refill" approach. that would enable the skill to be "switched on and off" every time. but from zero to full it would still take as long as it takes now. it still prevends ship to permanently use it as the ship has to gain speed to make use of it, fast on/off shouldn't be a problem.
the overall activation time should be the same.

[shoi]

will there any extra considerations needed for letting the AI understand how to use 2 ship systems from a modding perspective?

[Alex]

Related to HE, wanted to mention shield modulation's special effect in case it's not on your radar.
The AI is prone to firing HE missiles into shields and it feels real bad when they do practically nothing.
Extra penalty does reward skill both in handling shields and explosive weapons but IMO HE hitting shields is punishment enough.
Could be better to give the AI a hand by changing it.


Also shield-related, if you are considering a minor nerf to high tech hardened shields hullmod might be part of that.
Something like 15-20% would probably still make it an automatic builtin choice for most ships, but makes armor bricks comparatively stronger.

Thank you! Both of these are already on my radar, one's actually done and the other one is on the TODO list

With 700 range, sounds like two light ACs may be better than railgun or needler on ships with more mounts than flux can support.  (Sort of like two light mortars are better than one LAG, when both had 600 range.)

That sounds pretty good, I think - situation trade-offs etc etc.

If there was a specialized low tech destroyer with a large weapon slot I would give it a ship system that adds ion damage to its shots. Something like Ionized ordnance which adds X% of weapon damage per shot as ion damage that spreads through target's engines and weapons if high on flux

Hmm, why? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, btw, just in general, the "why" of an idea is... basically more important than the idea, really! A random idea is just a random idea, you know? But if there's a line of thought behind it, then that can help clarify whether it's a good or a bad idea, or perhaps lead to a discussion and something even better coming out of it.

Some theorycrafting about weapon range and ship speed,

Spoiler

Increasing range of LAC, LDAC and LAG to 700 means +16.7% range increase. Compared to 0.95, assuming non-ITU frigate builds, low tech and midline ships will have:

• without Unstable Injector : that +16.7% range boost for those guns (700), unchanged max speed
• with Unstable Injector: almost the same range as non-UI in 0.95 (595), together with +25% max speed boost

So overall in 0.95.1 (or whatever next version will be) you get either longer range (baseline) or higher max speed (if spending OP on UI hullmod). In both cases it shall help compete with the highly mobile high tech frigates using 600-range medium guns.

Lasher with 1 LDAC + 2 LAG or Centurion with 2 LAC + 2 LAG:

• without Unstable Injector : 700 range and 120 max speed
• with Unstable Injector: 595 range and 150 max speed (similar to Wolf)

Kite with 1 LAC:

• without Unstable Injector : 700 range and 140 max speed
• with Unstable Injector: 595 range and 175 max speed (similar to Tempest)

So I could see Unstable Injector becoming a high priority hullmod for some low tech and midline ships/builds in next version, especially for people looking for fast non-SO frigates alternatives.

For reference: having UI in 0.95 lowers 600-range guns to 510.

[close]

*thumbs up* on the analysis, thank you! Whether more speed or more range will end up being better for surivability remains to be seen, I suppose - but then again that's why it's the tradeoff for UI...

the change to the vanguard sounds nice.
but as someone already pointed out the possible problem in using "a lot" of Vanguard to alpha away a lot of ships i thought about a "little" Countermeasure  to this...
why not give a replacement penalty by using that ability. not the normal penalty for loosing the drone and replacing it what gradualy reduces the replacement rate, but a straight -x% the moment the drone explods, or the skill is used to "arm" the bomb...
this will allow for an alpha strike right at the first encounter with enemies, but the repeatable usage of it will dwindle in the heat of the fight where the drones get shot down more frequently.

(Assuming you mean the Terminator drone, not the Vanguard - the Vanguard is the low-tech frigate.)

I mean, that's an option! Right now it doesn't feel too powerful, though; the natural downside of the replacement rate ticking down from losing the drone feels like enough.

next to the change of the BD System.
first of all i like the idea to cancel it somewhere allong its duration. as a new player i am still hiting F instead of V sometimes ... 
i think the moment the duration is canceled, the CD will start befor i could reuse it?!
what i would like is a "steady refill" approach. that would enable the skill to be "switched on and off" every time. but from zero to full it would still take as long as it takes now. it still prevends ship to permanently use it as the ship has to gain speed to make use of it, fast on/off shouldn't be a problem.
the overall activation time should be the same.

Ah - I did think about this! Just, ship systems are not at all set of to handle a "steady refill" type of approach. And I do like that aborting a burn early still has a cost - it's not quite as much of a commitment as it used to be, with having to go the full distance, but you a least still are commiting to using the ability and having to wait before using it again.

will there any extra considerations needed for letting the AI understand how to use 2 ship systems from a modding perspective?

Yes - the specific system AI needs to be able to handle it. Most vanilla system AI can't because it assumes that it's using the system returned by ship.getSystem(), not the right-click system (which is returned by ... ship.getPhaseCloak()). So it'd just crash if the system was slotted in as "right-click" - or try to use the normal system. The Damper Field AI had to be adjusted to handle either scenario. Other vanilla AI has not.

[Thaago]

Hmm, so could a ship be set up from a mod to return a new custom ship.getPhaseCloak()? Assuming the system passed back was written for the purpose. Having custom ship systems on right click instead of shields would be wonderful from a modding perspective.

[Warnoise]

Hmm, why? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, btw, just in general, the "why" of an idea is... basically more important than the idea, really! A random idea is just a random idea, you know? But if there's a line of thought behind it, then that can help clarify whether it's a good or a bad idea, or perhaps lead to a discussion and something even better coming out of it.

Since the main problem of a destroyer with large mount is the extreme specialization, giving it extra emp damage as ship system would make it useful regardless of what large weapon it is equipped with.

So it becomes a destroyer that provides a two layered support: Large mount (i.e range) + EMP damage to harrass/disable stronger ships.

That makes it useful even in late game against redacted and other strong fleets.

[Wyvern]

Related to HE, wanted to mention shield modulation's special effect in case it's not on your radar.
The AI is prone to firing HE missiles into shields and it feels real bad when they do practically nothing.
Extra penalty does reward skill both in handling shields and explosive weapons but IMO HE hitting shields is punishment enough.
Could be better to give the AI a hand by changing it.


Also shield-related, if you are considering a minor nerf to high tech hardened shields hullmod might be part of that.
Something like 15-20% would probably still make it an automatic builtin choice for most ships, but makes armor bricks comparatively stronger.

Thank you! Both of these are already on my radar, one's actually done and the other one is on the TODO list

If you're going to nerf hardened shields, would you consider reducing its OP cost as well? Right now it's a near-automatic choice for installation as an s-mod simply because it's one of the most expensive hullmods that's generally-useful. For a cruiser or capital, it's hard to go wrong with integrating hardened shields and ITU, where in 0.9.1-and-earlier the high OP cost of hardened shields made it more of a decision.

A small nerf to hardened shields will just push it further into the corner of 's-mod this or don't use it', while a small nerf combined with a reduced OP cost should, hopefully, open up the field to it being reasonable to consider other choices for s-mods.

[SafariJohn]

For some existing takes on destroyers with large ballistics, you can check out Legacy of Arkgneisis's Burke and Burke (P) and the Roider Union's Bombard.

The Bombard backs its large hardpoint with a medium missile mount and a medium ballistic turret. Its raw stats are underwhelming except for its cruiser-grade weapon range, but its weapon mounts allow it to effectively use a variety of weapon combinations.

The Burke also has cruiser-grade weapon range, but has its large in a turret. Even with reduced weapon rotation speed, it's still substantially better than a hardpoint at focusing its fire on vulnerable enemies. Its reasonable stats, turret coverage, and PD ship system give it decent survivability even when attacked directly.

The Burke (P) is some crazy thing with TWO large ballistic hardpoints and not much else. I've never used one, but my understanding is it tends to flux-lock itself.

[Kahnmir]

I am a little concerned about this "balancing the tech levels" thing, I've seen many games get stuck in this never ending loop of nerfs that never seem to go anywhere.

Really, "balance" seems to be a lost cause because the only way you'll ever achieve true "balance" is to make everything exactly the same. Which is not fun.
I do think a form of balance that is fun can be achieved by leaning into the differences of various elements rather than making them more similar, but this is a tact rarely taken by game devs.

I also want to point out here that a small nerf to high-tech and a small buff to low tech can cumulatively be the same as a big nerf to high tech or a big buff to low tech. Which I think is pretty unwarranted.

Finally, there is an element that is completely absent from this discussion: Mid-line. If midline vs high-tech is "balanced" and midline vs low-tech is "balanced, but low-tech vs high-tech is "unbalanced" then what is actually going on here? Not claiming to know exactly how "balanced" midline is versus anything here, just pointing out that leaving it out of the discussion seems an oversight. I mean, if you nerf high-tech to the point where mid-line just does what high-tech used to do, and everyone stars complaining about how "op" midline is then you end up stuck in the "nerf-loop" I mentioned.