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 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic: What could be done with Safety Overrides  (Read 5378 times)

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #60 on: January 18, 2023, 06:08:32 AM »

Might make sense to use 15% as a "minimum" for that calculation, capping the CR decay to a minimum of 0.25 - I'm not sure that any ships really need *more* post-peak effective time than they're getting right now.

DP cheap low tech frigates (ie. 4 DP Lashers), which can't afford to fit an officer, unlike 8 DP Tempests/Scarabs or 15 DP Hyperions. They could use more combat time to hang with the capitals in late game fights.  I suppose Support Doctrine could help them, but when you're only throwing in 4 (16 DP worth say) to help escort capitals, it's not worth the investment in Support Doctrine since it is at most saving you 4 DP, so I'll switch over to two Scarabs so I can cover them with my limited officers.  An extra 50% post-PPT would be handy on them compared to their more DP expensive brethren.  Although this would arguably make Pathers scarier.
[/quote]
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #61 on: January 18, 2023, 09:19:10 AM »

Another option might be:

Double dissipation, no venting, zero flux always (but otherwise no speed boost)

Shields now generate hard flux.

In game reasoning: SO is like always venting and your shields are off during venting normally because venting utilizes the shields normal venting procedure. This has to be locked off, preventing the shields from venting flux under normal conditions. Shields must be off in order to vent their flux so that this connection can be re-affixed. And so venting hard flux can happen normally.

Another thing you could do would be to decrease acceleration by a size class* and increase impact damage. But I am not sure how well this would work. The idea here is that the overrides allow you to use your main engines better, but you can’t turn your main engines for a strafe and so this acceleration suffers relatively.

*that is frigates would get destroyer acceleration characteristics. Destroyers would get cruiser, cruiser would get capital, and capital would be unable to strafe or backup (provided you got one on it).
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #62 on: January 18, 2023, 06:03:53 PM »

I'll note that for a typical SO Hyperion with Combat Endurance/Crew Training/Hardened Subsystems, going from 100% to 40%, takes 79.2 + 360=439.2 seconds.  Same ship without SO takes 600 seconds.  439.2 * 2 = 878.4 > 600, so it's actually dissipating more flux in 439.2 than the normal ship over 600 (ignoring venting).  Safety Overrides is both faster flux and more flux possible per fight.

Hmm - would you mind clarifying how you're getting these numbers? I'm a little tired so it's entirely possible I'm missing something obvious here, but wouldn't the time it takes to go from 100% to 40% CR be the same regardless of SO or no SO, if we're discounting peak time?

And since the CR decay rate is 0.25% per second, and Hardened Subsystems plus Combat Endurance modify it by 0.75 * 0.75, we have:
Rate of CR loss = 0.25 * 0.75 * 0.75 ~= 0.14

And the time to lose 60% of CR (regardless of SO being present, yes?) is thus 60 / 0.14 = around 429 seconds.

If we add in PPT, it starts at 240 (with CE + HS) and is reduced to 80 with SO, so, it's:
Total time without SO, until down to 40%: 429 + 240 = 669 seconds
With SO: 429 + 80 = 509 seconds

What am I missing here?

... ah, 79.2 is 240 * .33 (which I rounded to 80), alright. So this means you're getting 360 seconds to lose 60% CR, and I'm not seeing how.

Aha, ok, ok, I think I do see. It's 240 seconds base, and you're multiplying this by (1 + .25 (CE) + .25 (HS)) = 1.5, right? Except this is not how that works, both CE and HS modify the rate of CR decay and are multiplicative with each other to boot.

For example, if it was just one of them, 240 would not be multiplied by 1.25 - rather, it would be multiplied by (1 / 0.75), which is 1.33 - it's actually better than what your calculation gives. For both, the rate would be multiplied by around 0.56, so a (1 / .56) multiplier for the time it takes.

(... this makes me wonder about putting Delicate Machinery on the Hyperion...)
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #63 on: January 18, 2023, 06:13:37 PM »

(... this makes me wonder about putting Delicate Machinery on the Hyperion...)
That would speed up CR decay significantly even with slower decay mods.  Whenever I run out of PPT with Ziggurat (or other phase ship), CR seems to decay too fast even with Combat Endurance and Hardened Subsystems.

I do not think Safety Override is worth it for phase ships because CR decays too fast for comfort.  For conventional ships with decay reduction, CR decay is slow enough to work with.

Delicate Machinery would make Hyperion rely less on time granted by CR decay.  Maybe extend Hyperion's PPT to 180 to offset faster decay from Delicate Machinery.  SO cuts PPT, but not CR decay.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #64 on: January 18, 2023, 06:21:41 PM »

Delicate Machinery would make Hyperion rely less on time granted by CR decay.  Maybe extend Hyperion's PPT to 180 to offset faster decay from Delicate Machinery.  SO cuts PPT, but not CR decay.

Good point! Made a note.
Logged

BaBosa

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #65 on: January 18, 2023, 08:12:54 PM »

Thinking about it, if you make CR/s loss proportional to the CR lost per deployment, you wouldn’t need delicate machinery because all those ships have high CR lost per deployment
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #66 on: January 18, 2023, 08:20:42 PM »

The thought did occur, yeah! Though the typical 20% for phase ships, minus Delicate Machinery, would result in their CR decay matching most high-tech ships instead of being faster. Which might be ok, but still, a difference.
Logged

BaBosa

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #67 on: January 18, 2023, 08:32:50 PM »

Just increase phase ships CR/D cost. Unless you specifically don’t want to do that then half delicate machinery’s penalty and the end result will be the same CR/s.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2023, 08:37:31 PM by BaBosa »
Logged

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #68 on: January 18, 2023, 10:02:20 PM »

Wait, why are we suddenly nerfing phase ships?
Logged

BaBosa

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #69 on: January 18, 2023, 10:24:12 PM »

It’s not really a nerf, just figuring out the implications of changing the CR/s lost system.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #70 on: January 18, 2023, 11:14:38 PM »

Can we just ban Hyperion from getting SO instead?

BCS

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #71 on: January 18, 2023, 11:45:31 PM »

Can we just ban Hyperion from getting SO instead?

No, random exceptions to the rule are bad game design.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #72 on: January 19, 2023, 05:24:47 AM »

Maybe block Safety Override for ships with Delicate Machinery.  It is already blocked for capitals and civilians.  Phase ships' CR decays fast even with slower decay mods.  Consider ships with Delicate Machinery too fragile to handle Safety Override.

If Hyperion gets Delicate Machinery, and Safety Override is incompatible with Delicate Machinery, then Hyperion simply cannot use Safety Override.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 05:27:15 AM by Megas »
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #73 on: January 19, 2023, 05:28:52 AM »

SO on the Hyperion is really an edge case because no other ship system is tied to the 0-flux boost. Going from “can teleport under ideal circumstances” to “can teleport at will” is a fundamental shift in how it operates. That’s not a fault of SO being overpowered so much as it is the Hyperion’s system mechanic. If the Hyperion had different teleport rules (say, “under 50% flux”), the difference between an SO and a non-SO ship would be far less extreme. Likewise, if SO didn’t give the permanent boost. All I’m saying is that the Hyperion shouldn’t be the poster child when it comes to SO balance: it’s a completely different ship with it.

Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #74 on: January 19, 2023, 05:44:21 AM »

Aha, ok, ok, I think I do see. It's 240 seconds base, and you're multiplying this by (1 + .25 (CE) + .25 (HS)) = 1.5, right? Except this is not how that works, both CE and HS modify the rate of CR decay and are multiplicative with each other to boot.

For example, if it was just one of them, 240 would not be multiplied by 1.25 - rather, it would be multiplied by (1 / 0.75), which is 1.33 - it's actually better than what your calculation gives. For both, the rate would be multiplied by around 0.56, so a (1 / .56) multiplier for the time it takes.

Well that is what I get for relying on my memory and not doing a test in game before posting.  For some reason at the time I was thinking it was 25% "slower" as in taking longer, but clearly that was a mistake.  Thank you and Vanshilar for the corrections.

To be honest, if there was a significant change in mechanics, tying CR decay rate, there would need to be a general pass over all ships anyways to update their CR per deployment, and a look at whether delicate machinery was necessary anymore.  You'd need to test if you were going too far, or not far enough on each ship.  Probably not something for the next release.

Certainly if you raised phase ships CR cost per deployment and made this change, then delicate machinery would no longer be needed on them.  It also makes sense thematically, since if they're that delicate, it should take more out of them after each deployment, even if they stay in PPT.  Campaign layer wise, all it would really change was how many fights in a row phase ships can do (and maybe repair time, although you could bump up CR per day restored if needed).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6