Print

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

[Dazs]

Awesome thank you!

Happy to help, enjoy your journey!

[Dazs]

v0.5.1 released today - Save Game compatible
   -Updated to 0.97a   

Just a toggle on the version number. Still looking into the .97a code additions to see if there are new niche hull mods to add.

[Dazs]

v0.6 released today - Save game compatible

   -Added a new hull mod, Armor Swap that swaps 1 percent hull for 1 percent armor for 1 OP - While fitting out ships I realized there wasn't anything for 1 OP
   -Added a new hull mod, Hull Swap that swaps 1 percent armor for 1 percent hull for 1 OP - Same as above but not compatible for players that would rather have hull
      -Big Thank you to Tesser who made the icons that I used for the above new hull mods
   -Added a new hull mod, Brawler Energy that works the same as Brawler Ballistics but for energy bolt weapons. Note: does not effect beams
   -Added the images and descriptions of the new hull mods to the picture on discord and the forum OP
   -Updated the game version to RC-7 to alleviate your OCD triggering mod manager yellow warning

Always open to ideas you may have for low cost hull mods so feel free to let me know and we can collaborate. You'll earn a coveted mention in the official changelog!

[SpiralMatai]

A nice hullmod collection, especially the brawlers and ablative/reflective armors. However im bothered by extremely poor balance on "cargo carver" (no reason to not use this on shuttles, they're unlikely to ever be in danger - tons of free cargo space), "faraday cage" (-5% hull for a 50% EMP dmg reduction sounds ridiculous) and "PD pep" (Tiny OP cost and 7% CR decay isn't a good drawback for +50% range to all PD) hullmods. Would love if these could be adjusted as they really stand out in an otherwise relatively well balanced mod.

[Dazs]

A nice hullmod collection, especially the brawlers and ablative/reflective armors.

Thank you for the kind word. I am all about giving player options and I felt the game lacked in low OP hull mods to fill in niche needs.

However im bothered by extremely poor balance on "cargo carver" (no reason to not use this on shuttles, they're unlikely to ever be in danger - tons of free cargo space)

Generally speaking, cargo ships do not enter combat except to flee and that is where I feel the balance is. Less hull equals less chance that a fleeting ship will make it to the end. I felt that taking away hull to make room for an equal about cargo space made some sense logistics wise. I am curious what your thoughts are on added negatives that make sense for the hull mod but adds more balance.

"faraday cage" (-5% hull for a 50% EMP dmg reduction sounds ridiculous)

5% is probably too low in retrospect. In your opinion, what would be a better % to balance it w/out making it useless to install.

"PD pep" (Tiny OP cost and 7% CR decay isn't a good drawback for +50% range to all PD) hullmods.

I have balanced this one 4 times since I originally introduced it in JYD. Some players want more range, some less, it was originally 100% then down to 30% now up to 50%. I'd like to hear you opinion on a balance suggestion for the 50% as that seems the sweet spot. I rely on player suggestions to help me get it right.

Would love if these could be adjusted as they really stand out in an otherwise relatively well balanced mod.

So nice to hear! I appreciate your feedback and look forward to any other insights you may have. All my mods are a collaboration effort and I do my best to work with players in making them the best they can be.

[SpiralMatai]

Generally speaking, cargo ships do not enter combat except to flee and that is where I feel the balance is. Less hull equals less chance that a fleeting ship will make it to the end. I felt that taking away hull to make room for an equal about cargo space made some sense logistics wise. I am curious what your thoughts are on added negatives that make sense for the hull mod but adds more balance.

I feel like situations where you have to flee are too rare to be a good balance offset - even then 20% hull will likely not make a difference whether a cargo ship lives or dies. I think it should have a campaign map negative like higher fuel usage/maintenance costs or lower maximum burn.

5% is probably too low in retrospect. In your opinion, what would be a better % to balance it w/out making it useless to install.

I think around 15-25% would be fair. Could also consider reducing armor instead of hull, would make it better for smaller ships which tend to be more vulnerable to EMP.

I have balanced this one 4 times since I originally introduced it in JYD. Some players want more range, some less, it was originally 100% then down to 30% now up to 50%. I'd like to hear you opinion on a balance suggestion for the 50% as that seems the sweet spot. I rely on player suggestions to help me get it right.

50% is alright - ideally it would be capped at some maximum range (800?) to prevent long range modded PD weapons from getting too insane. The negative is the main issue here since the CR degradation is tiny and relatively low impact on actual combat. Making PD weapons cost 1/2/3 more OP depending on size would be ideal I think, reducing their damage, raising flux costs or raising the OP cost by around 100% could also work

So nice to hear! I appreciate your feedback and look forward to any other insights you may have. All my mods are a collaboration effort and I do my best to work with players in making them the best they can be.

Thanks for the quick response. The rest of the mod's fine, if I had to be picky it'd be cool if the mods had some additional effects when they're built-in, even a simple small increase to both positives and negatives, but since that could be hell to balance it's not a big deal.

[Dazs]

@SpiralMatai Thank you for getting back to me so fast. I am currently working on an update for CFT and once I am done that I can give your comments a test and make some changes. I have free time Monday and should have an update for CJHM then. In the mean time, if you (or any other player) have (has) further suggestions, get them in by then and I will give them a consideration for that update as well.

[Dazs]

v0.7 Released today - Save game compatible
   -Added a new hull mod, Internal Tanks - Essentially a fuel analog for cargo carver - has the same exclusions but it is stackable with cargo carver
   -Added a new hull mod, External Tanks - Essentially a fuel analog for cargo pods - stackable with cargo pods - same deductions so it really makes a ship unwieldy if stacked
   -Adjusted Faraday cage by raising the hull deduction from 5% to 10% but increasing the flux from 50% to 60% - 5 was too low in retrospect but added 10% to help offset the increase
   -Adjusted PD Pep by increasing the Cr loss from 7% to 10% - 7 was a bit low and after testing 10 does have an effect but not so much it makes it useless to put on a ship
   -TY to SpiralMatai for bringing the above two hull mods in need of adjustment to my attention
   -Updated the image on the forum OP and discord post with the new hull mods and edited it to be more even
   -Fixed an oversight with the faction's "known hull mods" for those that want the hull mods unlearned at start, it is now updated to include all CJHM hull mods

@SpiralMatai Sorry I was unable to to keep to my stated release time of Monday, time just did now allow for it. You can thank 5ColouredWalker for tricking me into drinking a fourth cup of coffee today which gave me the kick in the pants to get it done already. After extensive testing I could not fully implement your suggestions and stay within the "low op" requirement of the mod without making the hull mods not worth installing on a ship. I did adjust them as you can see above but the changes I made reflect what I feel is in the spirit of the mod. I do appreciate you taking the time to share your feedback and hope you share any other suggestions you may have about any of my mods in the future.

[Dazs]

v0.8 released today - Save game compatible
   -Added a new low OP hull mod, Auxiliary Tanks - Reduces 25% crew and adds 15% fuel storage. Does not stack with Additional Berthing
   -Added a new low OP hull mod, Auxiliary Cargo - Reduces 25% crew and adds 15% cargo storage. Does not stack with Additional Berthing - TY SableDrake for the idea for both
      -Note there is a 10% disparity in these two to balance the 1/2/3/4 low OP and crew counts as a % are much lower than cargo/fuel on cargo ships and tankers
   -Updated the image on the forum OP and discord post with the new hull mods

I appreciate any ideas players may have for hull mods that fit in the "low OP junk" category. I am pretty much tapped out on ideas but these two were a player's suggestion and I never thought to effect crew count. So please keep them coming so we can make the mod the best it can be. I can be reached here or, as SableDrake did, as a DM on the unofficial discord. I check both daily. Enjoy!

[CV514]

Suggestion UI tweak: give cargo, fuel and otherwise "minor" logistical hullmods their own uiTags, for easy filtering and applying them, since they are mostly being used all in tandem. Something like "Logistics+", to be right next to regular Logistics tab.

Consider balance review for external cargo pods and tanks. They are too cheap for what they provide, especially on frigates, and since you can apply them right in space, makes deep space exploration pretty chill even with mods like Nomadic Survival and Perilous Expanse. Not talking about how busted shuttles are, absolutely trivializing "spacer" start in Nexerelin, providing you with 330/315 almost invisible transport right from the beginning. If "busted" is the intended state, consider at least adding docking requirement for their installation to prevent derelict cargo amassing in the middle of debris field. Or don't, if this is intended too. At the same time, somehow, they are feeling great and not completely out of place for bigger ships, so it mostly frigate-destroyer size situation.

Additional mod idea: something very cheap and light in OP cost, but providing little ground support bonus and/or reducing marine casualties a bit. Maybe two separate mods for that, something like "infantry arsenal lockers" or so, with drawbacks of max crew size on the ship (more lockers for weapons and armor, less space to sleep on). This may open opportunity to play as commando fleet with many militarized small ships instead of big one with dedicated ground support package. And also fill low OP leftovers on big ones, too.

[Dazs]

Hello CV514, thank you for the well reasoned comments. I'll break them down and address them the best as I can.

Suggestion UI tweak: give cargo, fuel and otherwise "minor" logistical hullmods their own uiTags, for easy filtering and applying them, since they are mostly being used all in tandem. Something like "Logistics+", to be right next to regular Logistics tab.

An interesting idea but I am unsure what you mean by minor. Do you mean all of the ones that effect cargo/fuel or the newer ones that swap cargo/fuel for crew space since they are lower OP?

Consider balance review for external cargo pods and tanks. They are too cheap for what they provide, especially on frigates, and since you can apply them right in space, makes deep space exploration pretty chill even with mods like Nomadic Survival and Perilous Expanse.

I balanced those low OP hull mods with the drawbacks I have built in to them as they really cripple a ship if used in combat. I did that to keep the OP down and keep in theme of junk hull mods. If you put them on a ship you plan to deploy then you will make it very vulnerable with the depleted hull, crew space, turn rate and speed but that is a risk/reward the player makes. If you put them on a freighter that you do not plan to deploy there is the risk of when you loose a battle and are forced to flee with your undeployed ships, it makes them sitting ducks and guaranteed to not be able to flee. And in both cases the extra fuel you will burn cuts into your profit margin on long hauls. When you factor all that in, the "cheap" OP is balanced with the increased risk of loosing a ship and it's cargo and added fuel use which both equate to a credit loss when using them ranging from minimal to catastrophic.

Not talking about how busted shuttles are, absolutely trivializing "spacer" start in Nexerelin, providing you with 330/315 almost invisible transport right from the beginning. If "busted" is the intended state, consider at least adding docking requirement for their installation to prevent derelict cargo amassing in the middle of debris field. Or don't, if this is intended too. At the same time, somehow, they are feeling great and not completely out of place for bigger ships, so it mostly frigate-destroyer size situation.

In your example of the "spacer start" I would agree that they would make it easier or, conversely, if a player wants to challenge themself there is nothing forcing them to use them. Overall all CJHM hull mods are intended to give players a choice they would not have in the vanilla game. This is a single player game and it gives to option to use them or not w/out effecting any one else's gameplay.

Additional mod idea: something very cheap and light in OP cost, but providing little ground support bonus and/or reducing marine casualties a bit. Maybe two separate mods for that, something like "infantry arsenal lockers" or so, with drawbacks of max crew size on the ship (more lockers for weapons and armor, less space to sleep on). This may open opportunity to play as commando fleet with many militarized small ships instead of big one with dedicated ground support package. And also fill low OP leftovers on big ones, too.

I like that idea a lot thank you for the suggestion. I am working on some updates for my other mods atm but I can certainly look into adding your logistics+, dock requirement and ground support suggestions to the next CJHM update.

I understand your initial comments regarding the hull mods provided can be considered cheap and I am not trying to be defensive in my replies. I am just explaining my reasoning of how I came up with the low OP while keeping them at a reasonable balance. I truly appreciate your post and look forward to any other observations or comments you may have.

[CV514]

I apologize if my statements seem like an attack that you have to defend, it's not intentional!

Overall, I find the whole modification fun and useful, just noting the element that seems very easy to utilize for the player's benefit. Logistic hullmods in question are very easy to override in their drawbacks by using them on ships that will never see a real combat scenario (as I have done in my current 14 cycles playthrough, so speaking from experience). Maybe I just pick my battles too carefully, so the described risk of losing said ships never happened to me, haha!
Anyway, this is just so something for you to consider. You are the boss, and it's in your right to reject this suggestion.

About UI tweaks, personally, I did it for myself to see how it will fit. Seems good enough, so I'll provide exact list below. As of "minor", it's my own judgement of them - they are not as "big" as regular logistics, not requiring slot and all that. Well, most of them, but external cargo the whole idea behind this is to make their application easier, without need to sort out "special" group by manufacturer, but still grouping them by function, they are additions to logistical stuff. Perhaps other hullmods could be categorized into appropriate groups to sit alongside their functional counterparts, since "Special" tab tends to be pretty populated with other mods in the list.

hullmods for dedicated UI group

CJHM_cargocarver
CJHM_cargofiller
CJHM_auxtank
CJHM_auxcargo
CJHM_cargopods
CJHM_farsight
CJHM_auxsensor
CJHM_sensorcloak
CJHM_expsys
CJHM_internaltank
CJHM_externaltank

This is what it looks like in game

[close]

[close]

[Dazs]

I apologize if my statements seem like an attack that you have to defend, it's not intentional!

Oh no need, I just re-read what I had wrote and felt I came off as defensive. I see so many negative comments on discord about this mod that do not take into account the debuff elements I include and just look at the OP. Sorry to make you feel bad, it was just my insecurity.

Overall, I find the whole modification fun and useful, just noting the element that seems very easy to utilize for the player's benefit. Logistic hullmods in question are very easy to override in their drawbacks by using them on ships that will never see a real combat scenario (as I have done in my current 14 cycles playthrough, so speaking from experience). Maybe I just pick my battles too carefully, so the described risk of losing said ships never happened to me, haha!
Anyway, this is just so something for you to consider. You are the boss, and it's in your right to reject this suggestion.

I am glad to hear you are enjoying the mod and thank you for understating my point.

About UI tweaks, personally, I did it for myself to see how it will fit. Seems good enough, so I'll provide exact list below. As of "minor", it's my own judgement of them - they are not as "big" as regular logistics, not requiring slot and all that. Well, most of them, but external cargo the whole idea behind this is to make their application easier, without need to sort out "special" group by manufacturer, but still grouping them by function, they are additions to logistical stuff. Perhaps other hullmods could be categorized into appropriate groups to sit alongside their functional counterparts, since "Special" tab tends to be pretty populated with other mods in the list.

hullmods for dedicated UI group

CJHM_cargocarver
CJHM_cargofiller
CJHM_auxtank
CJHM_auxcargo
CJHM_cargopods
CJHM_farsight
CJHM_auxsensor
CJHM_sensorcloak
CJHM_expsys
CJHM_internaltank
CJHM_externaltank

This is what it looks like in game

[close]

[close]

Wow, thank you! It is always a treat to get an idea from a player that I had not considered but you went the extra mile with this. The time I set aside this week to work on Hiver and CFT was taken over by some family issues so I cannot give an accurate ETA on a CJHM update but I will certainly include your work there.

[Shogouki]

I have a question about the Hellfire MIRV missile weapons.  I noticed that they have a relatively short range of 1000 units but they seem to be effective at more than twice that range.  Is the listed range on the weapons incorrect?

[Dazs]

I have a question about the Hellfire MIRV missile weapons.  I noticed that they have a relatively short range of 1000 units but they seem to be effective at more than twice that range.  Is the listed range on the weapons incorrect?

Hello again Shogouki, that is more for the Hiver thread but since you are a frequent flyer I'll allow it   Essentially the AI will not shoot missiles until the target is at that range. They are guided up to their stated range but it is not as if they disappear or self immolate once it is reached. Once that certain range is reached they cease being guided but continue in the last guided direction until they either hit something or fly off in the distance.