Print

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

[Kloranthy]

right, but, if SO were broken up in 2 or 3 hullmods, how many times would you use all of them on the same ship? thats the thing i run into so often.
there's a lot of builds i would put some of SO onto, but almost never do i want all of it, so i dont use it bc all of the drawbacks are only worth it if you want all of the upsides.
if you only want 1 upside then getting all 4 drawbacks just doesnt sit right in my brain.

well I put unstable injector in exactly none of my builds sooo yeah I would probably just pick the part that boosts flux dissipation.
if SO was changed to just be boosted flux dissipation at the cost of reduced peak time and malfunctions from ill advised modifications that would be pretty tight.

[SCC]

A part of the reason why SO is allowed to provide so many benefits is because it also comes with so many drawbacks, as a complete, indivisible package. If Alex were to break it up into different hullmods, I imagine he would nerf them heavily to avoid ships not caring about certain downsides, in effect only benefitting from hullmods. We have hullmod that increases speed, but reduces range: Unstable Injector. We don't have a hullmod that gives more dissipation in exchange for PPT, but on frigates, destroyers and some cruisers, the trade off can be made by getting more vents or Flux Distributor, instead of Hardened Subsystems.

[JUDGE! slowpersun]

It prolly wouldn't matter since crew deaths from this suggestion would prolly be calculated only when any particular battle ended, but if this mod dynamically killed crew during battle, would that just show up as CR loss, or does the game code allow any ship with total crew loss to just drift as though it were considered a disabled ship?  Not that I care to have crew loss be calculated dynamically over course of a battle, mostly just curious if game code allows this and am too lazy to crack open code and check myself.  I assume this would work since I believe you can have crew loss due to damage in battle, but unsure if total crew loss is even considered an option.

[6chad.noirlee9]

if it werent for the probably massive amount of coding i think that dynamic crew loss over battles would be cool and open a lot of tactical choices up to the player
suicide boarding parties anyone?!

lol ludd would be proud of that
not that im a fanatic, just think it would be interesting to see

[SCC]

Wouldn't it be just another health bar?

[intrinsic_parity]

If you lost enough crew over the course of battle to have a meaningful impact on CR, the entire strategy would be useless. You would not be able to fight more than one battle without buying more crew which is completely impractical.

[Timid]

I still think Safety Override should make ship takes 50% more crew casualties from hull damage sustained in combat either way. It's of course "safety" "overrides" who needs safety for your crewmates

[Deshara]

Wouldn't it be just another health bar?

i think thats the big reason SS shouldnt have boarding; it only worked in SPAZ because it being a second healthbar was the point, bc one of the factions you fought were zombies who only exclusively attacked your second healthbar. which extends over to ships being able to be crewed out in-combat. plus theres the issue that it would be very hard to give sufficient feedback to the player on how much crew theyve lost & when it happens. I mean, SPAZ had that problem sorted out by having crew losses (& crew evacuated from a destroyed ship in escape pods) (& zombies wanting to grab onto the hull of your ship) be slewed out into space where you could splatter them bow by plowing through them as speed, but, that's very much not the game Alex is trying to make

[6chad.noirlee9]

well hull is health, armor is health that protects main health, and for the vast majority of ships flux is health, so whats one more?
in all seriousness you could just do it the same way those are handled from a visual standpoint
id rather see better ramming physics that does something like calculate armor value and density and really make the impacts feel heavy
all that aside, it makes the most realistic sense (and this game absolutely does border more on realism than spaz) that in combat casualties could knock out entire ship systems
sure, that reaper didnt completely blow the ship up, but now youre not even operating with a skeleton crew, so why shouldnt that ship either bleed cr or maybe permanently lose functionality in an area if the hit was bad enough?  perhaps enough in some cases to effectively disable the ship to the point that you COULD in combat send crews in to take it over
in some of the end game big fights, or even in early ones under the right circumstances, this could be a valuable tactic
not to mention it would make new weapons a real thing (fire damage killing crew? ice freezing them to death? who knows?)
or, if youve got the SO scenario, systems exploding while under duress could kill crew and cause issues that way
im not saying any of this has to happen im just spitballing
also, really, an SO ship and that style of live hard and fast really screams "lets ram them to death and send boarding parties" to me.
im imagining a venture turned heavy armor SO with shield breaking weapons and close range high explosive plasma launched haphazardly from the missile slots (only once per go, and it damages the venture) so that they can send the fighters which are actually hollowed out mining drowns with great big drills to take functionality of that poor whatever-it-is-at-the-time
.....or something like that
imagine how fun it would be to fight a fleet of those
wheres the person who made kingdom of terra? help me out here? lol im kidding