Print

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

[Alex]

FWIW, I think having stronger or too-unique effects would be troublesome. One thing I want to largely avoid is having hullmods be valued purely because of the s-mod effect. For some of the cheapest ones (e.g. Advanced Turret Gyros) it's harder to avoid, but the goals are to 1) have the bonus be worth the ordnance point-difference between the hullmod cost and the baseline (and not way more), and 2) have the bonus be something you generally want if you already want the hullmod. I don't think the situation of "getting a hullmod just for the s-bonus" is something that should be encouraged.

It's definitely tempting to go more wild with the s-mod effects, though! But I do think that would lead to problems.

As it is now, you're generally picking between some nice but not earthshaking bonuses and "more OP", which feels about right to me.

Edit:

You are being obtuse

Please stay away from personal attacks and take a look at the forum rules.

I called him out for purposely misinterpreting the critique I laid at the system, which had nothing to do with him, that he then used (the misinterpretation) to suggest I go play with putty since I didn't know why rules exist in games.   

Purposely misunderstanding something can be described as being "obtuse" -it's not a personal attack it's a call out for what happened.   "Go play with putty" is a personal attack as it insinuates a lack of cognition. - To which I was responding and clarifying that I understood why rules in games exist.

You warned the wrong comment.

Get called stupid then get warned for telling the person who called you stupid to not call you stupid.

You've got a PM.

[Draba]

Not to mention this would make the 3 s-mod leadership skill much more important than it is right now. Every single specialised ship will gravitate towards the hullmods which bonus benefits them the best.

The notable builtins are EMR, HA, reinforced bulkheads, ITU, hardened shields, ECCM package (probably missing something).
EMR and HA are the most obvious ones and they are getting weaker, the rest are still high cost so my bet would be they are unchanged.
The cheap ones are presumably getting a boost to the level of the "standard" set by ITU/shields and nerfed EMR/HA.

That means expected power gain from 2-3 builtins goes down, or stays roughly the same for the few ships that use neither racks nor HA.
Ofc in practice the first round will have a few minor outliers, but on paper this is a tiny(deserved) nerf to Best of the best.

[bob888w]

Like Hamakus said, can we stop being rude in a nice way please, there's like 10 previous posts from me that were far more useful than calling out a single post for not stating the obvious.

So here's the obvious part. You want more minmaxing, because this is how you get it. Having unique buffs makes certain hullmods appear strong purely from the bonus part, not the hullmod itself which is backwards game design. Not to mention this would make the 3 s-mod leadership skill much more important than it is right now. Every single specialised ship will gravitate towards the hullmods which bonus benefits them the best. Thus creating the dumbest possible meta we ever had.

In a case where the bonuses are so small it doesn't matter, then there was no point to it in the first place.

The both point is a non-issue in most cases imo. With 15 skill points, the chance you take BOTB already is relatively high. In fact, I'd say it's the only capstone skill that almost everyone takes already, I think balance should already factor in the smod limit at 3, unless wild changes occur

[bob888w]

I think the changes overall feel good on paper, I'm still worried about that large manuevabilty debuff for HA though.

HA is go to not because it creates OP ships, but rather as its a necessity for a lot of low tech ships to even compete with high tech, high tech shield absorption ratios are so good that in most cases capacitors  are better the HS, but lowtech armor being nonreplenishable makes the expensive hullmod needed in most builds

[Grievous69]

Lol what are you two responding to? I was explaining why Vanshillar's idea was not good. I don't even get what's being argued here. The man suggested unique and important bonuses for hullmods, yet it seems your response was aimed at the current changes confirmed from Alex.

Not that it matters in any way since he already explained better than me why we shouldn't have range buffs on random hullmods.

[SCC]

My only fear is ending up with too many mechanics and levers that don't add much. There's a word for it but I can't think of it right now.

Wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. It's not exactly a word, I admit.

This might seem goofy but I believe with the few of us generally concerned and cynical folks, we keep the devs from going berserk and doing something "too experimental". I actually don't know how to explain this phenomenon with words but I know it happens in a lot of games with continued development.

Soviet Womble in one of his DayZ video essays mentioned how people can get attached to what the game could be in the early access, and they don't like if the game towards completion steers in a different direction. I could watch them and see which one was it, but at the moment I'm busy listening to C&C's soundtrack. I hope you understand it's hard to stop.

As for the topic of the discussion... My feeling about Heavy Armour manoeuvrability penalty is that this might lead to HA being unviable again, because it makes low-tech ships too sluggish. Back away too slowly when under heavy fire, turn too slowly to engage other ships effectively.

[Grievous69]

My only fear is ending up with too many mechanics and levers that don't add much. There's a word for it but I can't think of it right now.

Wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. It's not exactly a word, I admit.

Thanks, that's pretty much what I meant.

And I definitely understand how the expectation vs mystery of early access games can affect people that are big fans. This is why it's important to have roadmaps.

Honestly it's going to be hilarious if s-modded HA becomes unviable. Truly the circle of life. But actual numbers are best being trated as question marks until the patch actually drops.

[Draba]

As for the topic of the discussion... My feeling about Heavy Armour manoeuvrability penalty is that this might lead to HA being unviable again, because it makes low-tech ships too sluggish.

HA is in a strange-ish place, it's basically a necessity for making full use of low tech.
An option could be reducing both HA bonus and cost, and baking the difference into the lowtech hulls themselves.
Still, unless some really wild anti-armor toys are added the big boys will be fine IMO.

I was explaining why Vanshillar's idea was not good. I don't even get what's being argued here. The man suggested unique and important bonuses for hullmods, yet it seems your response was aimed at the current changes confirmed from Alex.

Post by itself also made sense, didn't notice it's a reply.
It does look better with context

[Grievous69]

Seeing as this patch will introduce the reworked Mining Blaster and a whole array of missiles which fire beyond the ballistic PD range, I think low tech is not going to be as strong as it is currently. Still strong mind you, but hopefully less annoying to take down.

[vladokapuh]

My only fear is ending up with too many mechanics and levers that don't add much. There's a word for it but I can't think of it right now.

Wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. It's not exactly a word, I admit.

This might seem goofy but I believe with the few of us generally concerned and cynical folks, we keep the devs from going berserk and doing something "too experimental". I actually don't know how to explain this phenomenon with words but I know it happens in a lot of games with continued development.

Soviet Womble in one of his DayZ video essays mentioned how people can get attached to what the game could be in the early access, and they don't like if the game towards completion steers in a different direction. I could watch them and see which one was it, but at the moment I'm busy listening to C&C's soundtrack. I hope you understand it's hard to stop.

As for the topic of the discussion... My feeling about Heavy Armour manoeuvrability penalty is that this might lead to HA being unviable again, because it makes low-tech ships too sluggish. Back away too slowly when under heavy fire, turn too slowly to engage other ships effectively.

that is a thing i dislike here too
for high tech you typically just take hullmods and skills to buff their output
but the maneuvrability and armor skills on lowtech feel more like compensating for glaring weakness

while lowtech ships (especially onslaughts) can be very strong, they also demand a lot more skills and hullmods to work at all
it also all sounds like shunted ships are gonna be dead

[Hamakua]

I wrote this elsewhere but it fits better here.

Gamers instinctively know to make the biggest ruckus before something goes through as that's generally the only time they have.  In my ~40 years of playing video games I can count on one hand the times a dev changed things "back" because they were wrong and the "gamers" were right (relatively speaking).

I also stand by my marketing comment.

If you are given the choice between adding 50% HP to all the enemies or taking away the equivalent amount of damage from weapons players already use - it's better to increase the HP of enemies even if the end result is the same.  The perception will be more agreeable to the human psyche.  Humans hate having something "taken away."   In my head (and I think the naysayers) - its' like this.  "the cheap S-mods get an even better bonus"  "The mid S-mods aren't molested" - "The must have S mods (for some ships/builds) are being nerfed/penalized and we have to make trade offs."

Imagine for example we take augmented drive - it needs to be S-modded into a lot of civillian ships for "optimum" builds,  Atlas, IIRC cannot fit both AD and Military subsytems.  Yes, we could go back to Tug gameplay-  but in my playthroughs (with the current build) I still use tugs- even with S-modded Atlases - I'll have 1 or 2 S-modded atlases for general fleet movements -saves a bit of busy work in the mid game - but I'll have a larger fleet of stock atlases when I'm tasking to make big moves - and with those I bring tugs.  I also bring tugs for a main battle fleet as S-modding an AD on the biggest combat ships is a bit of a waste of an Smod slot.   

well now lets say you added a penalty to Augmented drive to "re balance" its value if S-modded.  Lets say if you S-mod it it increases fuel and supply usage by 50% - now it's practically a Dmod - and further wipes out any "gains" it as an Smod might bring as now you might as well bring a Tug.  I'm making up the trade off to illustrate a point - not that I believe that would be the trade off or that they would be that harsh.

There is a similar *potential* conflict with combat S-mods - if the "penalties" are too great it will completely top-down cascade ruin some playstyles and builds.  I don't know them all - I'm mainly an Onslaught low tech fan - but I'm sure there are some builds somewhere where any given penalty will shift the OP balance to the point that the "build" is unusable.  Some builds are only possible because of one or two OP (usually in the frigate/destroyer range)-

Or take the poor shield performance of low-tech as an example - A nerf to Missiles S mod (which low tech is biased towards) may un-seat an entire flowchart of moving OP and mods around to the point that Low tech Cruisers and below become functionally dead weight.  - because 20 or so OP are missing - 

"I need to use vulcans instead of double light machine guns to free up OP - but the shorter range means reapers reach the shields before the PD can kill them - even though they wouldn't have reached the hull - The shield takes more hits - but Midline and High Tech dont' suffer as much,  they both have the speed and/or better shields to be able to back off more easily than low tech.  Do I now slot in hardened shields into builds I wouldn't have before to force this to work?  No,  lets just instead of Smodding missiles, eat the OP difference and go with [whatever] instead - but that leads to... " etc. etc.   It's not *just* the actual trade off effect (and I don't even know what they are other than the 50% missile thing) - it's the potential forcing out of builds because of the trade off.   There may be some "trade off" effects that actually make some current builds impossible.   

I've noticed the most "strict" tweaking happens at the Destroyer level.  (you would think frigate but I've found they have more latitude than destroyers in builds, chiefly because of their excess speed and maneuverability relative to most other ships).

I'll flatly be amazed if the changes go through and unintentional nerfs "further down the flowchart" aren't a result. 

[SCC]

Imagine for example we take augmented drive - it needs to be S-modded into a lot of civillian ships for "optimum" builds

See, the trick is that the optimal use of story points on spreadsheet ships is that you don't use any and save them for your combat ships instead.

[smithney]

that is a thing i dislike here too
for high tech you typically just take hullmods and skills to buff their output
but the maneuvrability and armor skills on lowtech feel more like compensating for glaring weakness

Gotta say that this actually feels flavorful. It makes sense for lo-tech ships to feel outdated, where you're smoothing out the flaws to make the strengths shine. And that you're polishing hi-tech to make them worth the investment.

A thought of tech-school-specific hullmods being a thing just crossed my mind, but I'm afraid it would just hammer down the school identity at the expense of player expression.

[bob888w]

Imagine for example we take augmented drive - it needs to be S-modded into a lot of civillian ships for "optimum" builds

See, the trick is that the optimal use of story points on spreadsheet ships is that you don't use any and save them for your combat ships instead.

But it's been stated numerous times that lowtech isn't "outdated" but rather just a different school of design in lore

[Rusty Edge]

Is the base Heavy Armor hullmod being Debuffed? Or only the S-modded version?