Print

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

[BCS]

I like it because it makes optimizing built-in mods more diversified. In the current game version it's always like... ITU, Heavy Armor, Hardened Shields, etc.

If we get buffs on cheaper hull mods, and debuffs on the costlier ones, we will be pushed to mix builds up.

Will we though? I certainly don't see myself wasting an S-mod "slot" for something like Advanced Turret Gyros. I'm still going to save as much OP as possible by S-modding the most expensive hullmods. If they come with a penalty, I'll simply eat the penalty.

If anything this would reduce my choices. Heavy Armor comes with a massive penalty -> Heavy Armor is mandatory on armor-tanked ships -> don't use armor tanked ships. Problem solved!

[Doctorhealsgood]

I like it in terms of it adding more interesting effects to hullmods rather than it being a balancing mechanism. Which makes me sad that S-mod effects won't apply to normal built-in hullmods like HRS on the Apogee, it feels... wrong that the dedicated sensor ships are worse than the player's Protagonist(tm) jury-rigged ships at sensoring (and whatever else might be built-in and missing out on bonuses).

Something something poorly integrated systems D-mod

[Droll]

I'm gonna paste a comment I made on reddit:

"I think it might be an idea to have hull mods like those have both their bonuses and maluses intensify when built in - heavy armor gives more armor than it would but also tanks your maneuverability even more, makes more thematic sense as to why it can’t be reversed once done as the build-in is more extreme."

Or another example, Expanded Missile Racks gives even more missiles but the reload gets tanked even more. That way it's not just "hullmod but worse".

[SapphireSage]

Its not just Hullmod but worse though, they're OP free for the cost of an S-mod slot. In fact, the amount of OP they would normally cost to not build them in, alongside with just how strong they are thanks to the power of missiles and the exponential scaling of armor, is exactly why those two in particular are almost always built-in where applicable. You otherwise save massive amounts of OP for the same slot cost as it would cost for you to slot in Advanced Turret Gyros.

[Grievous69]

I've already spent way too much time on this topic but hear me out. The amount of times I've s-modded ITU, RFC, ECCM, Armoured Weapon Mounts, ADF, Ballistic Rangefinder, Hardened Shields and Expanded Deck Crew is much much more than this thread suggests. Does a low tech ship always need Heavy Armour? Hell no, and that's not how I play. EMR is just popular because it's just that easy to spam missiles. Enemies have poor PD defenses except a tiny few challenge fights in the game.

Phase ships mount the same 3-4 weapons every time, ok let's rebalance phase ships or add another system so phase ships can use all weapons. It sounds silly but when you think about it the analogy is the exact same. And I'm even someone that optimizes the ever living heck out of ship builds, yet the current system poses zero issue to me. S-modded EMR with the new system just means you'll have to play around it, either by putting missiles that don't care about fire rate, or on a ship that is strong no matter the penalty. One might argue that this "playing around" will be more fun but I guess we'll see in the end.

Think about it, you'll s-mod a hullmod with a shiny new bonus, and your ship build will work pretty much how it would right now. Small adjustments here and there but the key part is going to be that you didn't perform the "expected" action. Missile ships are still going to be built towards making missiles the best, having a bonus come purely from EMR or something else does little to shake things up. We'll just have to learn a whole batch of new bonuses in mind when making fits. Unless of course these bonuses are something wacky, but then I fear for balance.

Here are more examples of obligatory actions you do which somehow don't appear as a problem:
- Onslaught always gets build with cheap, efficient weapons due to flux and mounts.
- Pure carriers always want long range poke and Expanded Deck Crew
- Big low tech ships always get the same officer skills (you can even argue this is another "clear cut" scenario)
- High tech ships without large weapons pretty much need Sabots if they're meant to fight anything of equal size or bigger.
- Hyperion is sad without SO.
- Making fits for logistic ships the same thing over and over again.
I can go on longer but I'll stop here. If you disagree with a single point just read the first paragraph of this post and how the whole "but I don't do this" thing works.

For anyone that's going to ask if I'm against every new change or new mechanic, or why should we even try to balance things. My response is "that's a very weird question to ask after reading my post". Because I like variety, I like making cool ship builds. 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.

Anyways sorry for the long post, the reddit thread reminded me of how much I hated this when I saw the twitter screenshot. New toys and things to do in the new patch may distract me for a while, but I'll remember my thoughts right now when I try out the new system.

[Thaago]

On the one had I take your point, but on the other hand I disagree with several of your obligatory action examples:
-Onslaught can be built with a mixture of premium weapons by either leaving some slots blank or skewing them further towards low flux PD. For example a central gauss cannon + HVDs/Maulers + the TPC's make it an effective long range combatant (and the sides can be closer ranged to deal with flankers). Some fits use Mjolnirs of all things, usually dropping any HE weapons other than missiles and using the Mjolnirs as "good enough" anti-armor vs shield tanks and loading up on kinetics otherwise.

-I don't put expanded deck crew on any carrier except those with really replacement rate heavy fighters, because the leadership skills regarding replacement rate are so strong. For interceptor carriers or others with low replacement times (like khopesh for example) I put unstable injector on for better kiting despite the penalty!

-For high tech ships without large slots I prefer torpedos over sabots, but I'm usually commanding them as part of an action group where I order them to all attack at once... so are they really attacking a larger enemy when I'm treating multiple ships kind of as one? I think I sort of agree with you on principle here but not in practice.

So, I guess the point of this is that YMMV on fits.

[Grievous69]

Now you know how I feel when I read "x thing is always s-modded" for the thousandth time.

[Alex]

@Grievous69: I get what you're saying, though I think you may be missing a key point here. The problem isn't really that the same things get built in all the time - that's fairly whatever, as far as problems go. It'd be nice if that wasn't the case, but not worth a lot of effort to "fix"; your examples of other things that are no-brainers are well taken, even if there can be disagreement over the specifics.

The bigger problem is that it felt like this system was constraining what I could reasonably do with new hullmods, by making their OP cost a non-factor. Anything high-impact could not get by with a high OP cost as a balancing factor without also getting the "no build in" tag. Which, I mean - maybe not the biggest problem in the world, but it was getting to be annoying with several hullmods.

Now, I *also* think that getting a bunch of effects from story points is pretty fun, and am hopeful that this will increase build variety in an actual meaningful way - maybe you'll be able to reach viability with some new options by stacking on some s-mod bonuses just so. But by itself this wouldn't be enough for me to want to make these changes.

[gG_pilot]

The bigger problem is that it felt like this system was constraining what I could reasonably do with new hullmods, by making their OP cost a non-factor. Anything high-impact could not get by with a high OP cost as a balancing factor without also getting the "no build in" tag.

  Bot issues  which are valid desiner headache could be solved by two stright rueles.
1. Hull mode can  be  s-moded up to cost 25 OP.(Hullmodes of size 26 or higher can not be s-moded)
2. Every  s-mode has value of 25  OP. Which  means cheaper hullmodes add leftovers  to the ship OP budget. e.i. when s-mode 15OP hulmode then  ship get another 10 OP in the budget.
(talking capital  ship sizes, other sizes  have to be counted)

On top,
--- rule number 2  has nice side effect, that player could s-mode early in game  without urge to wait for  the only best mode suited for specific ship. Difference between random hullmode vs specific hulmode s-moded to the ship is minimal. Main bonus comes  with the fact  that s-mode is worth  of 25OP.
--- ability  to s-modee small  hull-modes intentionally to  get max bonus free OP for weapons is interesting enough mechanic. It suddenly makes small s-mode  hullmodes very attractive for certain ships, like over fluxed Onslaught.

Now, I *also* think that getting a bunch of effects from story points is pretty fun, and am hopeful that this will increase build variety in an actual meaningful way - maybe you'll be able to reach viability with some new options by stacking on some s-mod bonuses just so.

Idea that you could  balance ~40  hullmods to a  point that everyone is worth s-mode becouse of "special side bonus"  is massive hubris. I bet my dinner, that in 3 days  after update  release, there will be topic  about list of 3 op  hullmodes. Now people s-mode armour,missile rack and itu. After update there will be also 3 hullmodes, maby same,  maby some of  them different.  I  just dont understand effort to reach the same  result.
If you have idea for  more  hullmodes, then introduce them stright.
WHen you lock some  very interesting hullmode effects behind s-mode wall, it  means:
1.  Player  urge to  3 s-mode  to every ship,  skill to get  3  s-modes  becomes mandatory
2. Player harvest s-points even more than  now
3. Player dont  use s-mode feature until get the proper hullmode because he need   the special effect  bejind the wall. Otherwise hee would get feeling "I would  ruin my ship"
4. the ship  build become even more blind alchemy because of piling additive OR multiplicative bonuses without any chance to check them. (TIMID Too much  info mod is possible saviour)

Please, dont apply this sick idea. Thank you very much.


 

[Draba]

Really like the 2 main effects:
- power cap for s-modded ships is slightly reduced (assuming the new bonuses are mostly in line)
- there is an extra layer of customization from getting more possible effects

On a side note, if you're looking to nerf missiles overall, then applying a rate of fire penalty to both the OP costing expanded missile racks and the s-mod slot version would make more sense than just the s-mod version, perhaps with an OP cost decrease.  At which point EMR becomes more of a tradeoff hullmod like Unstable Injector.

Wanted to suggest this exact same thing before getting to that post. I feel EMR is too obvious and powerful on too many ships, and missiles without bonus from either racks or officer are anemic in comparison.
Would be really good even with a minor tradeoff making it a more lateral change.

About the 50% builtin reload penalty: I think it would make it a really interesting choice, gives an option to conserve the low ammo S/M variants for a bit of OP.
Gryphon losing the builtin and gaining OP sounds nice: it finishes most battles with unused M ammo so reduced firerate would weaken the runaway racks+officer+autoforge interaction.


Heavy armor 25% maneouverability penalty would mostly affect the big boys that are good enough anyway (Onslaught, buffed Legion), kinda-sorta irrevelant on the frigate-destroyer level.
Only thing that I wouldn't be the biggest fan of is potentially making Dominator's wiggling problems worse.


Autoloader: whatever the debuff is I'm just really happy there is an option for making use of the 1-2 dangling S missiles on the ships that can't get EMR.

[WhisperDSP]

Personal candidates for S-mods are: Augmented Drive Field, Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, Efficiency Overhaul, Expanded Cargo Holds, Expanded Missile Racks, Insulated Engine Assembly, Militarized Subsystems. Mostly the dock-only 2-limit stuff.

Of them all, only Expanded Missile Racks goes on a military ship, the rest are simple QOL choices (I like fast smuggler fleets). Not S-modding the EMR won’t hurt, just less caps/vents available. The rest are not exactly “urgent” and can be mixed and matched to save S-points for more useful things, like Officers and planet/industry bonuses and the Historian.

There are some personal “question/rules” that I ask myself around these choices:

1/ will an officer skill substitute? (Spend the story point on mentoring the Officer - FAR more useful long-term.)

2/ are these ships going to be with me for the entire playthrough? (Cargo, fuel, survey ships.)


3/ can I get the essentials of what I’m wanting into a ship without using an S-mod? (Probably won’t do it.)

4/ are the ships fast enough already without ADF specifically? (Don’t add - and definitely don’t S-mod! - if not needed.)

5/ would putting it in as an S-mod reeeeeeealy take that ship to the next level? (Unlikely. Mostly it’s QOL.)

6/ why am I even considering an S-mod at all for this?

After going through those questions the answer gets clear er for me.

This is not to denigrate players who S-mod lots of stuff. Their choice. I’m trying to point out that spending the story points on Officers is possibly a better return. Comparing an S-modded EMR for one ship vs an Officer with Missile Specialization who can go to any ship as needed. Is an S-modded 3x the number of missiles really that necessary? Will 2x do? Can I fit in 3x without S-modding?

I do get what Alex is saying about other and potentially new hullmod choices being less attractive. Throw 40 OP into armor for a low-tech capitol ship and S-mod the OP cost away, insta-tank, it’s probably near-reflex for long-time players by now. Not like the player is doing it on the whole fleet.

What if the player only gets half (20) of those OP back? Half, rounded down, the rest perma-lost. The permanent reduction of ship OP would require more thought, because experimenting and switching stuff around becomes more restrictive.

Not quite such an “of course I’ll do it” reflex all of a sudden.

Too late as an idea, of course. Alex has already been working on custom malus’ for things.

[Grievous69]

The bigger problem is that it felt like this system was constraining what I could reasonably do with new hullmods, by making their OP cost a non-factor. Anything high-impact could not get by with a high OP cost as a balancing factor without also getting the "no build in" tag. Which, I mean - maybe not the biggest problem in the world, but it was getting to be annoying with several hullmods.

Well allow me to be cheeky for a bit and point out this issue exists solely because of the story point system allowing built in hullmods. I admit it's far more involved than just bonus OP for each ship but now we need to twist the game around it. And even with this new system, what's going to happen with SO, Phase Anchor and Neural hullmod? SO is going to get changed one day, Phase Anchor is a band aid for phase ships but very strong so I don't see that changing. And I still have zero clue why the need to punish people who invested 5 skill points only to have a permanent malus on the OP pool. It's already a meh tier 5 skill, just be done with the OP cost altogether, no more need to be special then.

@gG_pilot
Woah there this is even more dramatic than me. I hard disagree on the notion that the 3 s-mod skill is mandatory, in fact I avoid it since it's such a drag to spend so many story points.

[Draba]

Well allow me to be cheeky for a bit and point out this issue exists solely because of the story point system allowing built in hullmods. I admit it's far more involved than just bonus OP for each ship but now we need to twist the game around it.

Will give you that esoteric rules are starting to pile up around builtin mods.
I would prefer story points not having a direct combat power effect on ships or just being a clean OP bonus myself, but for the current system bundled penalties and buffs do look interesting.

I’m trying to point out that spending the story points on Officers is possibly a better return. Comparing an S-modded EMR for one ship vs an Officer with Missile Specialization who can go to any ship as needed. Is an S-modded 3x the number of missiles really that necessary? Will 2x do? Can I fit in 3x without S-modding?

S-mods and officers are not exclusive.
I'd say it's the other way around: using the S-mod and pilot force multipliers on a higher base is better, so S-mod officered ships and officer S-modded ships first.
Officers also do not need a story point to start working, lvl 1 can have missile spec right out the gate.

[Hamakua]

I don't like it but I also don't care because no matter how much Alex tries to hammer down the "meta nail" another will crop up.   My prediction is players just drop the expensive mods and eat the OD - but pivot to the lightweight mods with the bonus buffs.  It's silly to add disadvantages to what is supposed to be some sort of "bonus"

It's going in circles.  "here, you get a bonus for doing this thing"  "wait, I don't like how you all are choosing the same best bonuses."  "Ok, that's it, I'm functionally removing the bonus for doing this thing."

ok, just remove S mods then.  It's just silly.

A new negative attribute with either be inconsequential (then why bother) or will totally prohibit a mod ever being Smodded - in which case the story point gets used on the next most expensive (or lightweight best bonus) mod on the list.   This doesn't fix the meta issue.

and here is the biggest thing -

It's a single player sandbox game.   

You don't need to balance out this one niche and rare resource.

Meta would be developed if all mods and skill trees and elite talents and what have you were removed anyway.

It would then be a case of Hull vs. OP vs. Weapon cost.

Can't have that- so why don't we just pre-arrange and perma-fix 1 or 2 builds you can choose per hull, with no customization beyond the two loadouts.

oh no - everyone will choose the best hulls with the best loadout.

So we should then remove the loadouts and just have 1 hull per loadout.

Then players will just choose the best ship.

Cannot have that.

Make all the ships the same.

Silly and I roll my eyes at it - especially since it's a single player sandbox game.

[Draba]

A new negative attribute with either be inconsequential (then why bother) or will totally prohibit a mod ever being Smodded - in which case the story point gets used on the next most expensive (or lightweight best bonus) mod on the list.   This doesn't fix the meta issue.

Practically it's getting something like ~5-15 OP on a capital for a negative effect (cost difference compared to building in a no penalty 25 OP mod).
Absolutely no reason for the downsides to be 100% out of line with the cost (similar to the majority of the game's standard weapons and hullmods, those also offer various tradeoffs for OP).

Make all the ships the same.

A new mechanic is probably being added to increase variety if you do not want to handicap yourself.
It removes some obvious best cases and adds alternatives, that's the opposite of uniformisation.

It's a single player sandbox game.   
..
Silly and I roll my eyes at it - especially since it's a single player sandbox game.

If you genuinely do not understand why single player games need restrictions to make them fun just grab a pencil, some putty or a CAD program.
100% freedom with no rules to get in the way.