Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing  (Read 7771 times)

Caymon Joestar

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2021, 01:50:51 PM »

I am weary of the idea of s-mods boosting hullmods.  It would probably lead to overspecialization and unbalanced/overpowered loadouts, which would probably lead to watered down hullmods in the following release (like Hardened Shields adding +10%), and player will need to boost them to get to what we have (+15%), just to avoid overpowered results.

It could also turn story points more into Vespene Gas than it already is.

P.S.  The skill system before 0.95 is sort of like the boosting hullmod idea, but with skills (3 levels).

Uh mate, BDSM already does this and it’s fine. If you build in something like bulkheads, you get a extra 5% of hull. And some hullmods simply don’t have a smod bonus. ITU and EMR don’t have any smod bonuses for example.

A neat bonus of it is actually letting you get the smod bonus from bulit-in’s so if you have a ship with bulkheads built in into the hull, it gets the smod bonus.

Otherwise, This is just a non issue, if it ends up being too powerful, you just nerf the boost lol. You don’t have to nerf the hullmod.

I think you guys are looking at it the wrong way, The bonuses should be a way to give hullmods that don’t cost as much or don’t do enough on their own, a way to complete with the likes of Heavy armor and Hardened for the smod slot. That’s it. If someone chooses to simply still build in heavy armor or hardened, so be it, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Otherwise, smodding hullmods are honestly fine as is. Just needs more the game to use them more as me and more sp.
Logged

rabbistern

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2021, 01:53:46 PM »

Yeah - I could see arguments for specific ships possibly benefitting from more OP, but in general I don't think ships without s-mods are "OP-starved" at all. There's room for subjectivity regarding that, of course, but I personally don't think an across-the-board increase in OP is likely, or would be a good thing.
not op-starved, just "appears" that way after playing with OE (or was it called LD?) for years.
but with all the problems ive pointed out with S-mods throwing off the OP balancing aspect of the game, even now the S-mod system is already better than what we had. the +10% OP system really just meant that we had 47 instead of 50 character points and while maintaining hullmod hierarchy, just wasnt as interesting as having to manage story point spending on your favoured ships and consider builds based around permanent modifications.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2021, 02:03:08 PM »

@Thaago
As soon as I saw "Thaago" as the last reply in the thread, I knew what your take was gonna be lmao, no offense or anything btw.

And while it's nice to have different points of view, I couldn't disagree more. Yes you can make OP starved ships work while making trade offs, and sure they'll be okay, but they feel incomplete. Like some sort of autofit derp, there's always something missing to make a certain build "click". And this is the case with a lot of ships. S-mods help greatly with that, and while I have my qualms with how they work, I'd much rather have the current system than no OP boosts coupled with S-mods costing OP. I don't care that much about fancy hull mods if I can't fit decent weapons and max out my flux (no, not the elite weapons, middle of the road). Otherwise ships feels anemic and they take longer to do meaningful things in combat.

The idea for extra benefits for some hullmods seems really cool tho, but as mentioned already seems like a nightmare to balance.

Story points giving a flat OP boost to ships seems dumb.

Aaaaand since people responded while I was thinking what to write, Hiruma makes pretty good points. So in the end it seems like the best decision is to leave everything as it is and not experiment with such big changes that would affect every single thing in combat this late in the dev cycle. It would take waaay too much time and we'd never see 1.0.

Haha none taken, I'm a grumpy old man set in his ways who tends to repeat himself. :D I don't think my viewpoint is more valid than the others, just thought I'd chime in.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2021, 02:13:45 PM »

Well as a grumpy young man I appreciate the understanding.

Ok ok maybe OP starved isn't the best word for it, obviously I'm not saying "booo we can't do anything fun with ship builds". It's just the nagging feel of "man if only I had 10 more OP this might actually work alright". Some ships without S-mods feel like this, especially carriers as Megas often reminds us of. Seriously, go into missions and make a Mora build that's not sad and made just for tanking and wasting the enemy's time. It's supposed to be a battlecarrier lol.

But I have to give credit where credit is due, lately there's been plenty of nice balance changes with OP boosts to ships that need it, along with some weapon adjustments to bring everything together. This just further proves how you'll always have someone saying "but it's fiiiine", because they're just used to something being weak, while in fact that change that they were against made for interesting new playstyle choices. You could also say the exact same for us who think some ships don't bring much without S-mods but oh well, I believe everything will turn out just right in the very end.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 02:15:40 PM by Grievous69 »
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2021, 03:16:39 PM »

With regards to giving enemy ships more OP, I honestly don't think it's an issue. Normal (non-remnant) enemies are really not that strong atm, and the player would still have s-mod boosts on their ships that would give them an edge. I don't even think it's obvious that the player ships would fall behind the AI compared to the current game, that would still depend on how good the s-mod bonuses were.

Personally, I feel like most ships are pretty OP starved without s-mods. Feels like you can barely fit the basics (enough dissipation to cover weapon flux + weapons). You pretty much always have to leave a significant number of weapon slots empty and use only 1-2 hullmods if you want max vents which will just barely cover the flux cost of your weapons (usually not even that). Really doesn't leave much room for things like hullmod variety, or interesting weapon loadouts.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2021, 03:35:49 PM »

Ok ok maybe OP starved isn't the best word for it, obviously I'm not saying "booo we can't do anything fun with ship builds". It's just the nagging feel of "man if only I had 10 more OP this might actually work alright". Some ships without S-mods feel like this, especially carriers as Megas often reminds us of. Seriously, go into missions and make a Mora build that's not sad and made just for tanking and wasting the enemy's time. It's supposed to be a battlecarrier lol.

Hmm - always looking to hear feedback on specific ships (other than the Mora, noted) that fall into this category!

(That's why I'm a bit wary of blanket "increase ship OP across the board" type ideas; every ship is its own thing, really.)
Logged

Jackie

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2021, 05:33:03 PM »

It seems to me that the solution here is to change how S-mods work.  Instead of making them free, they improve what the mod does.  Hardened Shields for example, as an S mod, still costs normal OP but might grant a slight decrease in flux per damage over the normal, or maybe just extend the shields a little bit.

I'll just say two things here!

1) I don't think that "you generally only build in the most expensive hullmods, and they tend to be the same couple of hullmods" is particularly a *problem". It might be more interesting if this wasn't the case, but it's also not actually a negative that it currently is.

2) I really, really, like this idea, whether or not that'd be coupled with also making the mods free or not.

I would be really happy if the idea came into a reality!  ;D
Logged
Don't compare your life to others if you have no idea what their life is all about.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23987
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2021, 06:38:35 PM »

2) I really, really, like this idea, whether or not that'd be coupled with also making the mods free or not.

I would be really happy if the idea came into a reality!  ;D

:D Seriously, what you did with Better Deserved S-Mods, which I had a chance to look at all the screenshots of just recently, is very impressive, and it's an elegant approach. The idea of making cheaper s-mods more appealing by giving them better s-mod effects is just *chef kiss*.

(And, ah, I'd hate to step on its toes! I mean, I can't exactly not do things in vanilla for fear of duplicating mod functionality - but it'd still feel bad - which, if we're honest, is a large part of the reason I don't generally delve into mods too deeply.)
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2021, 06:53:54 PM »

Some mods are made to be obsoleted ;)
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2021, 06:54:47 PM »

What about some sort of compromise, lower OP s-mods add some extra OP to a ship?
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2021, 07:38:51 PM »

I see both sides of the argument but where Hullmod+ can really shine is do some fairly creative/off-the-wall things that "more OP" can't. More OP can give you more guns, more vents, etc. (which is all very good and straightforward) but what Automated Repair Unit giving 1% Hull Health/sec, what's that worth in OP (using the mod idea)? Boosts in speed, shield efficiency, less recoil, etc. are all difficult to quantify from an OP-perspective. The rub I could have is that you start taking hullmods exclusively for the bonus effect. As long as the bonus effect is more of a double-down on the primary effect, I'm good with it but I'd hate to see Improved Turret Gyros also give +15 top speed or some weirdness. It would be like min-maxing synergies for a Diablo character by putting points into skills you'll never use. 

The other consideration is, assuming S-modded hullmods are permanent and no longer free, the "permanence factor" will weigh into S-mod choice. After all, it prevents you from swapping out builds willy-nilly and can narrowly define how the ship functions. Heavy Armor, for example, if it is still one of the most expensive hullmods, almost needs more reason to make permanent than a cheaper hullmod that the ship can "afford" more readily. Even ITU (which is almost universally useful), might need a little bit of a "sell" because if you ever decide to use SO with that ship, ITU is basically dead-weight. You sort of do that now but freeing up OP is a bit more forgiving then being stuck with extra armor that makes you less maneuverable.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2021, 11:50:08 PM »

I see both sides of the argument but where Hullmod+ can really shine is do some fairly creative/off-the-wall things that "more OP" can't.
Breaking news: local man discovers hullmods. Which is to say, well, those are just upgraded hullmods. Alex might as well just make a hullmod upgrade mechanic (maybe with branching psths, too), with or without story points. I wouldn't mind that.

rabbistern

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2021, 02:32:10 AM »

I see both sides of the argument but where Hullmod+ can really shine is do some fairly creative/off-the-wall things that "more OP" can't. More OP can give you more guns, more vents, etc. (which is all very good and straightforward) but what Automated Repair Unit giving 1% Hull Health/sec, what's that worth in OP (using the mod idea)? Boosts in speed, shield efficiency, less recoil, etc. are all difficult to quantify from an OP-perspective. The rub I could have is that you start taking hullmods exclusively for the bonus effect. As long as the bonus effect is more of a double-down on the primary effect, I'm good with it but I'd hate to see Improved Turret Gyros also give +15 top speed or some weirdness. It would be like min-maxing synergies for a Diablo character by putting points into skills you'll never use. 

yeah, that is a part of the points i was trying to make with this thread.
as a strong example: the vanilla odyssey has a really slow shield even with accS, and cant be flickered well. likewise, it has an inefficient and GIANT shield, so omnishielding it even with HS is quite... well its not the best ship under ai control.
with BDSM (unfortunate abbreviation) accS gives an extra 100% to shield speed, while AT increase the maneuverability bonus to 66% from 50%. in vanilla, you wouldnt get far with accS and AT at their normal values, and would have to hope for the best building in the most expensive hullmods such as EMR, ITU, HS etc, but since discovering BDSM i have never built in any of said mods, my oddysseys destroy everything under lvl 5 officer command, which is why i wanted to highlight this (now must-have for me) mod as a great approach to balancing hullmods and OP vs SP.

2) I really, really, like this idea, whether or not that'd be coupled with also making the mods free or not.

I would be really happy if the idea came into a reality!  ;D

:D Seriously, what you did with Better Deserved S-Mods, which I had a chance to look at all the screenshots of just recently, is very impressive, and it's an elegant approach. The idea of making cheaper s-mods more appealing by giving them better s-mod effects is just *chef kiss*.

(And, ah, I'd hate to step on its toes! I mean, I can't exactly not do things in vanilla for fear of duplicating mod functionality - but it'd still feel bad - which, if we're honest, is a large part of the reason I don't generally delve into mods too deeply.)
so, can we hope to ever see this type of functionality as part of vanilla? its probably one of the easiest fixes to implement (although ive never had professional experience with a language higher than SCL so idk anything about ss development) and would allow more diverse and specialized builds - which is also an issue people have due to op restrictions - while removing the nobrain process of trading in a SP for EMR or HS or ITU for some spare op
Logged

Jaghaimo

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2021, 05:38:44 AM »

As long as building hullmods in reduces OP cost to 0, the most expensive, and most general hullmods will be on my to-built-in list. The only way to change that is, personally, either:

  • Remove OP cost reduction, but instead increase the benefits of each hullmod (say flat out +20% to all hullmods), or
  • Have a flat cost reduction, dependent on a ship class (say -4 for frigate, -6 for destroyer, -8 for cruiser and -10 for capital size).

Doing both (remove OP cost as per vanilla right now, but increase bonuses like BDSM does) feels too gimmicky to balance, as you need to look into each hullmod in comparison to others.
Logged

Jackie

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: The S-mod slippery slope, SP vs OP balancing
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2021, 05:43:23 AM »


:D Seriously, what you did with Better Deserved S-Mods, which I had a chance to look at all the screenshots of just recently, is very impressive, and it's an elegant approach. The idea of making cheaper s-mods more appealing by giving them better s-mod effects is just *chef kiss*.

(And, ah, I'd hate to step on its toes! I mean, I can't exactly not do things in vanilla for fear of duplicating mod functionality - but it'd still feel bad - which, if we're honest, is a large part of the reason I don't generally delve into mods too deeply.)

I'm blushing from a comment made by yours.

By all means, I would not mind you stepping on its toe and taking its footstep since it will encourage other modders to follow in the mod's footstep if it's implemented in vanilla! ;D I'm confident you can come up with a better and cleaner implementation when I usually hit a wall on some of these hullmods!

Logged
Don't compare your life to others if you have no idea what their life is all about.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5