Print

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

[Alex]

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.

Yeah - a bunch of ships already do this, as far as I know. You specify the defense type as PHASE and then the system id as the defense id.

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.

Hmm, interesting! Thank you for explaining your thinking. I will say that I like the general idea of a system that adds EMP damage. I do have something particular in mind for this one already, though.

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.

I'm not sure that "s-mod it or don't use it" is any worse then "always pick this but don't s-mod it", which a nerfed + cheaper hardened shields would be. In fact, the former seems like it's probably better, since there's more of a choice there - if it's worse than now, then another hullmod might compete with it for being s-modded in, no? Where if it's cheaper, it's just going on there no matter what.

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.

Thank you for the rundown! (The Burke actually sounds fairly similar to what I've got in mind here.)

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 feel like that's very much what we're doing here - helping low-tech's different approach to things actually work out. Balance is important, though - obviously not like it is in a multiplayer PvP game, but in a single-player game, good balance helps with variety. The bar for what's "ok" is lower, though, for sure.

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.

I'm ... not sure that sort of math checks out, generally speaking It all depends on the details! But that aside, I think I understand what you're saying. Balancing is an iterative process, though, and things will over and undershoot and so on, particularly in the face of significant changes like new skills or the burn drive change etc. I think it's worthwhile, though, since ultimately the goal here is to make more playstyles work. We're not aiming to have, like, perfect balance for the sake of numbers lining up, but for larger, more gameplay-focused goals.

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.

Midline isn't as specialized, or, rather, doesn't have as distinct an approach to things. It kind of splits the difference between low and high tech and just ends up with a bunch of solid ships. I'm obviously keeping an eye on them, but since there aren't a lot of *systemic* changes - rather, they're more targeted at specific issues - midline ships should not be affected in a way that drastically changes their power. For example, a nerf to hardened shields isn't going to suddenly make midline great - this one actually affects all tech levels. And the changes to the Tempest are targeting one specific ship, not high-tech as a whole. And so on.

[Wyvern]

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.

I'm not sure that "s-mod it or don't use it" is any worse then "always pick this but don't s-mod it", which a nerfed + cheaper hardened shields would be. In fact, the former seems like it's probably better, since there's more of a choice there - if it's worse than now, then another hullmod might compete with it for being s-modded in, no? Where if it's cheaper, it's just going on there no matter what.

...No? I mean, I guess that does depend on how much cheaper and how much you nerf it, but my aim with this suggestion was to bring it back to where it was in 0.9.1-and-earlier where it was basically just the Paragon that literally always got hardened shields installed, and everywhere else it was at least somewhat situational and something that you might just not use because you needed the ordnance points for other things.

For which, with s-mods existing, it needs two things: It needs to not be one of the most expensive hull mods (so you can reasonably pick other things to s-mod), and it needs to be balanced at the OP cost it has.

I'm not actually personally convinced it needs a nerf in the first place, but if I were going to nerf it, I'd start with changing its OP cost to 4/8/12/20 and then reduce the damage reduction to 10% (but keep the boost to defense against shield-piercing effects the same.)

Edit: If you wanted to get fancy you could even do something like "reduces damage taken by shields by 10%; reduces HE damage taken by shields by an additional 5%."

[SCC]

I don't think it's a good idea to nerf HE damage to shields, with skills or hullmods.

[AcaMetis]

For example, a nerf to hardened shields isn't going to suddenly make midline great - this one actually affects all tech levels.

In theory, but in practice I'm expecting a different outcome. Compare a a Tempest to a Vanguard - which of these two is going to care more about a Hardened Shields nerf? Or a Paragon compared to an Onslaught, even if the latter isn't a Shield Shunt variant, or a Conquest. High Tech lives and dies on it's shields, they don't have the armor to do anything but take the occasional stray hit without exploding (hopefully), and with energy weapons they need every flux war advantage they can get. Midline can afford to lose their shields briefly, they're not designed to armor tank but they stand a chance of survival if they have to and have access to ballistic weapons. And Low Tech is Low Tech, we know their armor tanking strategy by now.

Nerfs like that is going to prevent High Tech from leveraging their speciality until it pushes the meta towards Midline to the point where the new mantra becomes "Midline Best Line", and then we're right back at square one.

[EclipseRanger]

I absolutely love these additions/changes.Thanks Alex .
IMO,Low Tech benefits from having a more distanced relationship with shields(or sometimes even forgoing them fully) while getting other toys to emphasize its own niche.And Terminator Sequence seems very fun to play around with.I love the general idea of moving into more complex ship systems(and not just stat bonuses).Admittedly,the new system seems more fun to use with more tactical tradeoffs than "press button to do more DPS".

On that subject,is it correct to assume more similar mechanics/tools are coming in following patches?Obviously,the next patch is far off,but from things like the Breach missile,and the Vanguard uniquely possesing 2 systems,and the new Tempest system,I am getting the feeling that the gameplay is shifting towards more tactical tools and fewer stat boosts.

[Retry]

Can we get a few numbers on current changes to weapons/hullmods?  Quite a few of us would be interested in testing a few of these changes.

[Alex]

I'm not actually personally convinced it needs a nerf in the first place, but if I were going to nerf it, I'd start with changing its OP cost to 4/8/12/20 and then reduce the damage reduction to 10% (but keep the boost to defense against shield-piercing effects the same.)

Ah! I think that's where the difference comes in; to me it seems too strong, so generally "weaker and less OP" leaves it still too strong - or, well, with a rather tiny bonus. So I guess your general point is to make it cost less OP (and balanced for that - which, I mean, in retrospect - of course! A bit silly of me to assume "lower OP cost but still overpowered"). But that's a broader topic re: s-mods. You'll usually s-mod the most expensive mods, regardless, and some of the mods will be the most expensive ones, so reducing the impact and cost of the hullmods *currently* in that category just re-arranges what's in it but doesn't actually *change* things more broadly. I suppose if the most expensive hullmods were all highly specialized? That might be worth thinking about, but, again, it's a broader topic than just one hullmod.

In theory, but in practice I'm expecting a different outcome. Compare a a Tempest to a Vanguard - which of these two is going to care more about a Hardened Shields nerf?

I didn't say they had the *same* impact on all tech levels! Just that it affects most ships and so its relative impact on high-tech is somewhat mitigated.

Stepping back to address the broader point: I don't think the argument that one shouldn't try to balance things because they *might* become imbalanced in some other way makes much sense. Balancing is an iterative, incremental process. When there are changes - especially with a bigger release - the balance will be disturbed, and needs more adjusting. But, yeah, like... might as well not add new ships because they might be overpowered, not add new mechanics because they might be exploitable, and so on. Balancing things is just an ongoing part of dev work.

I absolutely love these additions/changes.Thanks Alex .

On that subject,is it correct to assume more similar mechanics/tools are coming in following patches?Obviously,the next patch is far off,but from things like the Breach missile,and the Vanguard uniquely possesing 2 systems,and the new Tempest system,I am getting the feeling that the gameplay is shifting towards more tactical tools and fewer stat boosts.

Hmm - I wouldn't *necessarily* assume that. The things you've named all got specific, custom mechanics in order to be able to fit into design niches that just tweaking raw numbers would not let them do. And stat boosts could be interesting, too. I mean, in some sense Burn Drive is a stat boost, to speed, but it's still interesting! So I don't think it's a general trend, it's just... you're noticing me use the same kind of tool to try and solve some particularly tricky design challenges. Which, fair enough, and *thumbs up* on connecting all of these as sharing similar traits! But it doesn't represent a change in design philosophy, if that makes sense. Just... right tool for the job, right? And part of this, I suppose, is the engine just having developed easier access to be able to do these kinds of things. For example, the Breach piggybacks on the work done for the Omega weapons, and the Vanguard makes use of some not-really-originally-intentional features that got added in and refined because modders wanted them.

Can we get a few numbers on current changes to weapons/hullmods?  Quite a few of us would be interested in testing a few of these changes.

Not quite yet. I'm also not sure if it'd paint the full picture without corresponding changes in skills (a lot of which are still pending). Hmm... I'll keep this in mind! Right now it's definitely too partial to share in detail, though.

[AcaMetis]

I suppose if the most expensive hullmods were all highly specialized? That might be worth thinking about, but, again, it's a broader topic than just one hullmod.

Broader topic, yes, but I would just like to mention that S-modding Operations Centre, one of the most expensive hullmods in the game (most expensive in some cases - for Frigates it costs twice as much as SO!), is not something that practically anyone does...

didn't say they had the *same* impact on all tech levels! Just that it affects most ships and so its relative impact on high-tech is somewhat mitigated.

Stepping back to address the broader point: I don't think the argument that one shouldn't try to balance things because they *might* become imbalanced in some other way makes much sense. Balancing is an iterative, incremental process. When there are changes - especially with a bigger release - the balance will be disturbed, and needs more adjusting. But, yeah, like... might as well not add new ships because they might be overpowered, not add new mechanics because they might be exploitable, and so on. Balancing things is just an ongoing part of dev work.

Fair point, and something like the Termination Sequence change is definitely more than just "ship's too good, maybe reduce it's flux stats". That said I am concerned about things getting nerfed that don't need to be, or things getting nerfed beyond what's needed. Tempests are good, sure, but they're good for premium frigates in a patch that heavily pushes a frigate meta. If those skills change, suddenly Tempests are less good, and if they get nerfed on top of that suddenly they might be plain awful (for their cost). Basically what happened to Drovers in 0.95 - once there was Drover Spam, now there is Herons trying to justify hauling carriers around.

Of course we'll have to see how all the skill changes, ship additions/adjustments, etc., ultimately add up. I'd just hate to see Tempests (or High Tech in general) become the next Drover and me moving on to the next "overtuned" fleet composition because the overnerfed ones just can't justify their costs.

[Demetrious]

I really like everything I read in that blogpost but what I really, really adore is how the new hulls neatly fit into the low-tech Domain design doctrine.

Fluff for various hulls mentions the "battle-line doctrine" of the old Domain and many low-tech ships reflect that in their design and positioning of mounts; the Dominator being a classic example (and the Champion being a classic example of a mid-tech take on Domain doctrine.) The biggest hurdle to making low-tech ships work in this game has been, to me, the disconnect between the "battle line doctrine" and the AI's ability to actually realize that doctrine. Burn Drive being interruptable should be a huge effective improvement in the AI's ability to actually move around and make good on their various escort orders, or the checkerboard "defend here" patterns some players use to keep their low-tech fleets in a rough battle line. It certainly increases the value for the player as well, and as someone who tends to fly Onslaughts as much as possible, I can attest that it really needed that. Even after the significant buffs in the last version, the Onslaught is still a tricky ship to fly sometimes, even with the experience I've had with it, because getting that burn drive timing right and eyeballing the distance is important. And sometimes you have to bite your lip and accept the Bonk - despite the damage it does to your precious forward armor - because it's either that or let an enemy capital back off and vent. (And god forbid if you lay on the trigger a little too hard and it blows up in your face before you can raise shields. Oi.) Burn drive is going to be a lot more useful now, but honestly, that still just feels like bringing it up to parity. I think I speak for many of us when I say that on low-tech ships we often find Harpoons to be important bordering on mandatory so we can confirm kills on runners; because the burn drive isn't really an option half the time it should be.

Most importantly, burn drive is still... well, burn drive. It's not the equivalent of high tech mobility systems, as those are actually optimized for hit-and-run tactics. Burn drive won't get you out of the fight, but it can get you into the fight - which is why it was so frequently either a suicide button or just not worth the risk. Now it gets you into the right place in the fight which is essential for low-tech doctrine.

... which brings me to the other two new hulls and why I like them - low-tech is a doctrine that more or less embraces specialization. (This is accurate to real life; if you compare US WWII "fleet boats" to their inter-war brethren, you can see how the idealized all-round fleet submarine only came about due to technological advances, and how earlier submarine concepts had to make essential trade-offs to be effective at a smaller number of roles; further requiring a diversified fleet working in concert to cover every role sufficiently.) As Alex said, the Lasher - despite being an excellent little gunboat for frigate/destroyer fights - just doesn't have the speed or short-term tank required to do frigate things in large battles; and even in the Old Domain Era a frigate's role in a large battle would be essentially the same. Thus one would expect the Domain to have fielded a frigate variant meant specifically to operate with large battlewagon fleets.

The Eradicator also fits into "battle-line doctrine" as a great ship for protecting flanks. Accelerated Ammo Feeder is by far my favorite ship system; pushing that button and watching a ship buzz-saw through hostiles is amazing. As a flank protector, it makes sense that it'd trade burst speed (burn drive) for sustained higher speed and horrific burst firepower; if you think of it as a ship meant to protect the ends of a battle-line formed by Onslaughts and Dominators, that's exactly the kind of ship you'd want.

Adding this to pirate fleets is also VERY nice. I second whoever said that they're sick and tired of fighting Ventures. The best part is that a burn-drive ship with the standard generous low-tech missile slot allotment makes for a perfect pirate-doctrine ship, much like the Falcon(P); focused on overwhelming burst firepower to end fights quickly and the speed to take advantage of opportunities to deliver it.

Lastly, I really like the Tempest change. The Tempest is fun to fly, and the DP cost of a destroyer means we've always had to pay more or less what its worth, too. I can see the problem you had with High Energy Focus. It's a flat boost to the ship's burst damage output - which is always good and is necessary for frigates in big fights if they want to make a difference without torpedoes loaded - but it also regenerates and works great against other frigates too, which, combined with all its other strong points, makes it just a little too much. But making the damage more compartmentalized in its utility would require reworking weapon slots and such and those work pretty well as-is. Plus, it'd diminish what makes the Tempest so fun (and what makes it worth the staggering DP cost) - the versatility.

The drone missile system is a regenerating missile weapon on a frigate which is hands-down great - especially because it's somewhat unique in the HP of the drone (which I'm going to wager is better than a great many missiles) and that it can also shoot while inbound, so maybe it can plow through rocket spam whereas no other missile weapon really can. And yet, it imposes a direct cost on the ship, by denying it a drone for a while, and costing it fighter replacement rate (which also gives it a semi-limited pool that needs to regenerate, a bit like charges.) It keeps the hallmark flexibility of the hull while adding a resource cost (and associated opportunity cost) for using it, which keeps it from being hands-down insane.

Also, it's pretty cool. 

Overall these sound like great changes; I can't wait to play with them. 

[Alex]

Fair point, and something like the Termination Sequence change is definitely more than just "ship's too good, maybe reduce it's flux stats". That said I am concerned about things getting nerfed that don't need to be, or things getting nerfed beyond what's needed. Tempests are good, sure, but they're good for premium frigates in a patch that heavily pushes a frigate meta. If those skills change, suddenly Tempests are less good, and if they get nerfed on top of that suddenly they might be plain awful (for their cost). Basically what happened to Drovers in 0.95 - once there was Drover Spam, now there is Herons trying to justify hauling carriers around.

Of course we'll have to see how all the skill changes, ship additions/adjustments, etc., ultimately add up. I'd just hate to see Tempests (or High Tech in general) become the next Drover and me moving on to the next "overtuned" fleet composition because the overnerfed ones just can't justify their costs.

Fair enough! (The Drover, there may be some sort of bug that's currently tanking its performance - I forget the details, but I seem to recall seeing some report. It's written down in a TODO sheet so I'll have a look eventually.)

I really like everything I read in that blogpost but what I really, really adore is how the new hulls neatly fit into the low-tech Domain design doctrine.
...
Overall these sound like great changes; I can't wait to play with them. 

Thank you, glad you're into the changes/additions! <3

[Demetrious]

Thank you, glad you're into the changes/additions! <3

Low-tech forever

And the Tempest... Well. I'm not sure about that one. On one hand it did lost HEF. On the other hand, it gained a tachyon lance torpedo. Alright, not quite tachyon lance, but still beefy as hell. I feel this won't change much for most early/mid game combat scenarios. But can you imagine a pack of those for a late game fleet? Handling one or two kamikaze drones is manageable, but dealing with a ceaseless swarm from an entire Tempest fleet seems... Impossible. I guess it'll all depends on the system's cooldown, the drone's range, or its maneuverability if it's affected. But from what i'm seeing, it seems like a moderate early game nerf/side grade and a terrifying late game buff for the Tempest, or at least, for a pack of Tempests.

Yeah, but if they do that, they'll be shorn of their innate point defense for a while and thus be easy prey for Talons, Thunders or even a few Locust launchers. Which really strikes at the heart of the change - the Tempest is not overpowered in any one scenario you could put it in. In fact, it's not even overpowered as a player flagship. What pushes it slightly over the upper edge of "fair for the DP cost" is that it's good at everything, all the time, which makes rolling around with a big death blob of them attractive. Taking it out behind the woodshed with a nerfbat would beat everything fun about the ship out of it. It needed, like, a nerf toothpick. And I think that's more or less what it's got. I'm going to guess that the damage output of the Drone Missile is more or less on-par with the kind of burst output that HEF on it used to deliver; you just have to make a temporary trade-off for it now. Which accomplishes the very difficult goal of keeping the innate versatility of the hull (it can do everything and do it with the same fit,) without making it an auto-win button. And leaning more into the drones, which is the unique and fun thing about the Tempest to begin with, is a really nice way to do it; it makes you weigh your very good integral point defense versus that tempting wide Onslaught stern in front of you. In either case, the Tempest will do really well; it'll just do even better and do it faster with some other variety in the fleet rather than "another Tempest" always being the hands-down best choice for the DP.

[Wyvern]

But that's a broader topic re: s-mods. You'll usually s-mod the most expensive mods, regardless, and some of the mods will be the most expensive ones, so reducing the impact and cost of the hullmods *currently* in that category just re-arranges what's in it but doesn't actually *change* things more broadly. I suppose if the most expensive hullmods were all highly specialized?

"Most expensive" isn't actually the only priority there, though. At least for me, I want 'most expensive hull mods that are always going to be useful' - I'm not going to s-mod, say, expanded missile racks into something unless I'm absolutely certain that I'll always want EMR on that ship.

And that is, for me, the main reason I always end up with ITU and Hardened Shields s-modded on cruisers and capitals - they're the most expensive hull mods that are just generally always good*.  With Hardened Shields reduced to the same price as Flux Distributor, there's some actual choice in what you s-mod, and at that point, you might actually end up not installing hardened shields at all, if there were more valuable things to spend ordnance points on. Whereas if you just nerf Hardened Shields down to 15-20% damage reduction with no change in OP cost... well, nothing changes except that my ships are slightly less durable.

* Excluding only some builds for dedicated carriers, the Gryphon, or ships you know you'll be installing SO on.

[Alex]

... hmm. Right, yes, that's (not always wanting racks) kind of what I meant by having the most expensive mods be specialized. Still, this is a good point. On the other hand, it seems like a 10% Hardened Shields would be way too good if it was the same cost-tier as Flux Distributor... and going below 10% would just feel bad.

[AcaMetis]

Fair enough! (The Drover, there may be some sort of bug that's currently tanking its performance - I forget the details, but I seem to recall seeing some report. It's written down in a TODO sheet so I'll have a look eventually.)

Replacement rates were tanking because Reserve Deployment losses counted as actual losses, or some such, IIRC? Of course that combined with the Remnant LPC nefs, carrier nerfs and the (since fixed, I believe?) bug where shielded fighters would stay permanently overloaded make Drovers a thoroughly underwhelming package.

That said I'm still not sure whether Herons or Astrals are worth using either. Carriers just ate so many nerfs and want player skills that conflict with other important stuff (Carrier Group over Crew Training? In what universe?) that it seems better to just cut them out entirely and focus on finding a replacement. Maybe focussing on a carrier fleet would be more effective, but mixing fleets seems very much against the meta this patch.

[Demetrious]

Fair enough! (The Drover, there may be some sort of bug that's currently tanking its performance - I forget the details, but I seem to recall seeing some report. It's written down in a TODO sheet so I'll have a look eventually.)

Replacement rates were tanking because Reserve Deployment losses counted as actual losses, or some such, IIRC? Of course that combined with the Remnant LPC nefs, carrier nerfs and the (since fixed, I believe?) bug where shielded fighters would stay permanently overloaded make Drovers a thoroughly underwhelming package.

That said I'm still not sure whether Herons or Astrals are worth using either. Carriers just ate so many nerfs and want player skills that conflict with other important stuff (Carrier Group over Crew Training? In what universe?) that it seems better to just cut them out entirely and focus on finding a replacement. Maybe focussing on a carrier fleet would be more effective, but mixing fleets seems very much against the meta this patch.

When I first played the latest version I thought carriers were dead as well, though I've moderated my opinion since then. The biggest impact to me is the dearth of carrier-relevant skills; to really build a fleet around them you'll need some battle-carrier fits mixed with pure carrier fits. Haven't tried that yet so I can't speak to it, though.