Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?  (Read 1071 times)

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6125
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2022, 01:32:03 PM »

IMO the best use of rugged construction is without hull restoration (Heresy time: its the most overrated skill). The hullmod reduces the effect of D mods, so having them be pristine is devaluing it: just don't care about D mods. Recovering a ship with multiple D mods also costs far less supplies than one without.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9950
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2022, 01:46:57 PM »

Re: Hull Restoration
If I could ensure that I would get flawless victories or I do not mind reloading for them, I could see dumping Hull Restoration for more combat skills or Radiant flagship (with Tech 8 ).  I pick up Hull Restoration for the same reason I take Navigation - massive QoL.  Also handy for patching up automated ships, and I do not want to pay two million to fix up Ziggurat.

I reload much less when I do not care about half of my fleet exploding because Hull Restoration and Field Repairs keep my pristine ships pristine most of the time and effectively become immortal.  (There was one unlucky time Hull Restoration failed and multiple ships got d-mods.)

The main problem with Hull Restoration is two less skills for Combat stuff (because tier 2 Industry skills are great for combat) although I frequently want Industrial Planning anyway if I do not use alpha cores.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2022, 01:55:52 PM by Megas »
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6125
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2022, 01:54:37 PM »

I like hull restoration for endgame when I have multiple S mods on every ship and am using cruisers/capitals that are expensive to repair (and even if I let them ride with 1-3 D mods depending on what gets rolled, I'll probably need to repair them eventually). For early and midgame I just don't care about D mods on my ships because they are less lost combat value than lacking combat/leadership skills. At that point my character is probably not maxed, so non-combat skills have a proportionally greater cost.

This is for bounty hunting of course - for exploration the industry line is great and there's not much need for taking lots of combat skills anyways.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 20035
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2022, 02:04:24 PM »

I'll just add that I've got a note to make rugged construction start recovered ships off with some hull and CR; I think that should help it along nicely.
Logged

Linnis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2022, 02:47:58 PM »

Talking about supply recover costs.

I just noticed, that if the ship is expected to die, it would be more supply efficient to keep the max CR of the ship low... Because 100% CR takes more supply to reach than say, 50% CR. This bring up the question, is the combat bonus from higher CR worth the supplies?
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2022, 04:17:18 PM »

Talking about supply recover costs.

I just noticed, that if the ship is expected to die, it would be more supply efficient to keep the max CR of the ship low... Because 100% CR takes more supply to reach than say, 50% CR. This bring up the question, is the combat bonus from higher CR worth the supplies?

On a 6 DP frigate with 4 d-mods, probably as that's a difference of 1.8 supplies, or 360 credits when destroyed.  A level 5 officer costs like 2,500 credits a month, so the 10% damage dealing, damage reductions, and speed boost for 360 credits per fight sounds reasonable.  Heavily d-moded Vanguards with field repairs are pretty economical, especially when you're talking about half the penalty on each d-mod.

A pristine 0 d-mod frigate, much less so, as that is 1800 credits a destruction for an extra 30% CR.  But that's the factor of 5 in recovery costs at work.
Logged

DaShiv

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2022, 04:39:20 PM »

I'll just add that I've got a note to make rugged construction start recovered ships off with some hull and CR; I think that should help it along nicely.

That sounds like a nice buff! A reduction to crew lost (a la Recovery Shuttle) would also help make those ships more economically feasible as well.
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2022, 02:50:30 PM »

Spoiler
[close]


59 supplies, 5.9k + ~20 crew lost, 1k. thats 6.9k at base price for supplies and crew, without TAX.

How!?
That's...Wow. That's not my experience at all.
I've literally never seen a frigate that wasn't a Tempest or Hyperion cost more than 20-something supplies to recover.
I've even recovered Tempests and Hyperions that cost less than that.

Seriously, I'm well curious as to why that's as expensive to recover as it's showing...
Logged

Hatter

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2022, 04:31:01 PM »


How!?
That's...Wow. That's not my experience at all.
I've literally never seen a frigate that wasn't a Tempest or Hyperion cost more than 20-something supplies to recover.
I've even recovered Tempests and Hyperions that cost less than that.

Seriously, I'm well curious as to why that's as expensive to recover as it's showing...
Vanguard is 6 DP, so it costs 6 supplies to recover. It uses 10% CR for deployment. Therefore, 10% CR costs 6 supplies to recover. As a destroyed ship it starts at 0 CR, and therefore takes 60 supplies to recover 100%. Assumedly the crew training skill is slightly strained, pushing down maximum CR to 97-99 % would explain the 59 supplies requirement.

Alternatively, a Tempest has a CR per deployment of 20%, and a DP of 8. This means to get it to 100% CR it would take 40 supplies. Which is still less than the vanguard.

Essentially the Vanguard being destroyed means it essentially as the same wear as ten back-to-back battles, compared to a Tempest's five or a Hyperion's two and a half and takes correspondingly more supplies to recover. 

CR is detailed here.
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2022, 04:34:45 PM »

How!?
That's...Wow. That's not my experience at all.
I've literally never seen a frigate that wasn't a Tempest or Hyperion cost more than 20-something supplies to recover.
I've even recovered Tempests and Hyperions that cost less than that.

Seriously, I'm well curious as to why that's as expensive to recover as it's showing...
A lower CR cost per deployment cost is actually a disadvantage in the case you get destroyed (or go to 0% CR due to staying in combat too long).  Essentially, 6DP/10% is 0.6 supplies per % for a Vanguard.  A tempest is 8DP/20%, or 0.4 supplies per %, and a Hyperion clocks in at 15 DP/40%, or 0.375 supplies per %.  A Hyperion is cheaper to restore than a Tempest, despite being almost twice the monthly supply cost.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2022, 06:45:10 PM by Hiruma Kai »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9950
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2022, 06:25:48 PM »

That sounds like a nice buff! A reduction to crew lost (a la Recovery Shuttle) would also help make those ships more economically feasible as well.
That would be nice for Hull Restoration too.  Both peak Industry skills expect casualties.  Hull Restoration want pristine ships despite losses, and Derelict Continent want d-mods for buffs despite losses.

One thing I noticed during my last few battles when I lost several ships was I lost a bunch of crew.  I had to go back to a market after about two battles to refill on crew.  I probably might need to be a transport to haul crew, although I do not want to do that because hauling lots of crew eats at income (when I do not have unlimited money yet.)

If I could always win flawlessly or did not compulsively loot exotic ships (like Radiant or Ziggurat), I would take more combat skills instead of Hull Restoration and another Industry skill.  I take Hull Restoration for the same reason I take Navigation, which is massive QoL.  (No Navigation hurts too.)
Logged

Nimiety

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2022, 08:25:54 PM »

Industry tree already has crew loss reduction in the containment proceedures perk
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6125
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2022, 09:27:19 PM »

The CR% per deploy also governs the effective supplies/second tickdown in combat after exceeding PPT and it does the same counterintuitive thing: ships that have less % per combat cost more for going over their PPT than ships with high %. Hyperions have their hullmod, but their whopping 40% per combat actually makes it fairly economical to drain their CR every fight.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3445
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2022, 03:12:10 AM »

A lower CR cost per deployment cost is actually a disadvantage in the case you get destroyed (or go to 0% CR due to staying in combat too long).  Essentially, 6DP/10% is 0.6 supplies per % for a Vanguard.  A tempest is 8DP/20%, or 0.4 supplies per %, and a Hyperion clocks in at 15 DP/40%, or 0.375 supplies per %.  A Hyperion is cheaper to restore than a Tempest, despite being almost twice the monthly supply cost.
It comes up whenever you burn through CR after running out of PPT. And I already pointed this out to Alex!
The CR% per deploy also governs the effective supplies/second tickdown in combat after exceeding PPT and it does the same counterintuitive thing: ships that have less % per combat cost more for going over their PPT than ships with high %. Hyperions have their hullmod, but their whopping 40% per combat actually makes it fairly economical to drain their CR every fight.
It might be a part of why SO Hyperions are a good idea, especially with Hardened Subsystems and Combat Endurance. 40% CR is nominally 160 seconds, but can be increased by 75% to to 280s. If a SO Hyperion starts at 100% CR, then it will take 80 seconds for it to run out of PPT, then 420s until 40% CR. 500s of SO is probably better than many regular options (I don't know, I don't play with SO), but not necessarily more expensive.

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
    • View Profile
Re: Rugged Construction Missed its mark?
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2022, 03:44:10 AM »

Vanguard is 6 DP, so it costs 6 supplies to recover. It uses 10% CR for deployment. Therefore, 10% CR costs 6 supplies to recover. As a destroyed ship it starts at 0 CR, and therefore takes 60 supplies to recover 100%.

That can't be right.
A pristine Cerberus has a DP of 4 and the same 10% per deployment, so according to this it should cost 40 supplies to revover.
But it doesn't. It costs 31.
Spoiler
[close]
There's something else going on here.

I've also noticed from replaying the same battle multiple times that the same ship deployed, lost & recovered in the same battle can have wildly differing recovery costs each time.
And the Vanguard itself seems to be vastly more expensive to recover than almost any other frigate (and many other things besides).

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3