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 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: What could be done with Safety Overrides  (Read 5374 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #75 on: January 19, 2023, 08:35:37 AM »

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

(If they're truly "random", then *perhaps*! But otherwise, absolutely not. Exceptions are often what make things interesting, or are needed to make otherwise interesting things work out, etc.)


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.
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.

Hmm, yeah. Ironically, if the Hyperion got Delicate Machinery which then blocked SO, the Hyperion would not need Delicate Machinery anymore - aside from the "blocking SO" part :) If the Hyperion couldn't install SO, its system would need a change, I think. Maybe a longer cooldown and removing the zero-flux requirement; something along those lines.

For all that it might look like the Hyperion is designed around SO, it was meant to be a kind of fun option and not something so dominating as to be the main use of the ship!


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.

Oh, I missed that Vanshilar already talked about this, my bad.


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.

Yeah, that's how I'm leaning right now, too; it's just too much.

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).

I do like how Delicate Machinery clearly signposts that, hey, this is meaningfully different, though...
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #76 on: January 19, 2023, 11:05:04 AM »

Maybe a longer cooldown and removing the zero-flux requirement; something along those lines.
Even longer? Current cooldown is enough to make it annoying. And the cooldown nerf was done specifically because of SO, anyway!
I do like how Delicate Machinery clearly signposts that, hey, this is meaningfully different, though...
Well, we don't have a hullmod for flux dissipation different from normal, or manoeuvrability different from normal, or basically everything that's in the stat card, do we?
No, random exceptions to the rule are bad game design.
If it was random, there wouldn't be a discussion about Hyperion interacting with SO in a way no other ship does. You could say it's an exceptional relationship.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #77 on: January 19, 2023, 11:10:02 AM »

The CR decay reduction from skill/hullmods is what really makes SO annoying in my opinion - it's just a massive increase in time they are on the field.

One possible solution is to increase the PPT time bonus from hardened subsystems and combat endurance, but remove the CR decay reduction. SO already cuts addition PPT time by 2/3 so this proportionally benefits them less, and SO could even gain a normalized/scaling reduction in the same manner that it has for range.

Another possible solution is to remove the CR decay reduction hullmod/skill and have SO reduce PPT to 0 (multiplying by 0 so boosters do nothing), but have it reduce decay to something reasonable. That way ships with SO immediately begin ticking down and decaying: how long they last can be tuned by what their decay rate is. When using or fighting SO ships, the player has an immediate indication of how long they will last (the CR ticking down), and this should normalize how long SO lasts - the decay can be tuned by ship class to make it balanced as opposed to riding off of the 'regular' ship PPT which can vary.
Logged

smithney

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • Internetian pleb
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #78 on: January 19, 2023, 11:33:16 AM »

Can we just ban Hyperion from getting SO instead?
No, random exceptions to the rule are bad game design.
But this isn't really a random exception to the rule, is it? Hyperion is designed to be a unique hull that bends the rules. It's a prime candidate for rule exceptions if anything. That said, it's always better if exceptions don't have to be made. It's one thing to have to obey the traffic rules, another to have to bend to extra ones when driving an F1. If extra rules have to be made, better to make them invisible or fake them as a buff.

Regarding SO, my two cents are that it's something that should come with a significant hazard besides allowing the player to break some rules, as in SO doesn't really feel risky to use right now. Currently it sometimes feels like an enabler to certain hulls, when it was clearly designed as a playstyle alternative. I'll have to pass on my chance to come up with some suggestions right now, but I'd like to encourage others to invent some interesting drawbacks to SO, it really feels like it should be a high risk-high reward hullmod.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 11:38:14 AM by smithney »
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3784
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #79 on: January 19, 2023, 02:44:23 PM »

have SO reduce PPT to 0 (multiplying by 0 so boosters do nothing), but have it reduce decay to something reasonable. That way ships with SO immediately begin ticking down and decaying
I actually really like this idea just for the thematics of it; it feels like the sort of thing you'd expect overriding safety systems to do to your ship.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #80 on: January 19, 2023, 03:55:29 PM »

Me too! I kind of want to think of ways to make it work because the answer of "what does turning safety settings off do?" being "everything immediately starts degrading" is satisfying.

It still has the downside of making low tech ships much more expensive to SO compared to high tech ones/Hyperion though because of supplies per CR point, so there would probably still need to be another tweak. I wouldn't mind that being fixed because it also makes recovering those ships much more expensive as well which just seems thematically off.
Logged

Vanshilar

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2023, 02:46:50 AM »

If you're using SO on ships that have zero vents then you're doing something wrong. You save OP on cheaper DPS weapons and hullmods that you now don't need since SO gives so much. 2 Heavy Blasters is much much cheaper on OP than an usual high tech build with more mounts filled. And so are Chainguns and HMGs.

Then you also don't need any range enhancing hullmods, nothing for speed or maneuverability, turret turn rate, and probably a few others. This is all being saved by simply installing SO. And sure some ships will be more hungry for OP depending on their mount layout, but most don't care.

You end up having to put a lot more points into capacity since you'll be taking several times the amount of damage compared with non-SO. That also likely means Hardened Shields, Extended Shields (since there will be more incoming fire from different directions), and more PD coverage. There's simply not enough OP.

From a fleet perspective more of the fleet will also be cycling out when they get high on flux. And so they're doing damage a lower percentage of the time.

Analysis of SO's performance cannot ignore weapon range, as if the ships start off at 450 range from each other. Only the Hyperion gets to do that since it can teleport.

The thought I had about it - and it's not fully fleshed out, and I'm not fully committed to doing this, so, big disclaimer/grain of salt - is to change SO to function as an active ability instead of a constant passive buff.

I feel like SO as a passive ability makes more sense. The flux, weapon range, and PPT effects all work together to create a high-risk, high-reward situation. Part of that is the PPT decrease means that the ship is forced to take the initiative, i.e. cannot just sit around waiting for the "perfect" opportunity, which is part of the "high risk" aspect. Changing it to an active ability, unless the effects to weapon range and PPT are retained, basically makes it into another version of AAF or HEF.

The main issue with this currently is that CR decay takes too long when SO is used, so the PPT decrease doesn't have that desired effect of forcing an engagement. Hence SO affecting CR decay by the same factor of 3 would solve that issue.

I’m getting the impression that this discussion is becoming an extremely polarizing contest between newer players who want an easy-to-start strategy for dipping their toes into the game and combat…

…before slowly graduating to the more hard-core players who are digging into deeper options for the tougher ships and a more challenging combat game…

…and the communication between the two is getting close to breaking down big-time.

It's tempting to see internet discussions that way, as if it's just red team versus blue team or whatever, but I'd encourage you to look at who are actually bringing specific points to the table and are able to address other points being brought up with facts or reasoning, and which reasoning makes more sense.

Where it might become more productive is:

* start with X to get used to things

* gradually have a play with Y and Z mechanics, get a feel of them - you can always go back to X if the game is whipping you or you just want a more chill game playthrough occasionally

* after a certain point, stop using A/B/C ship mods to challenge/force yourself to try new strategies

So from this (naive) perspective, taking X out as a starter option is counterproductive on the whole.

That's actually more or less how I see SO. It's good for the early game, when the initial enemy fleets are d-modded pirates or whatever. They don't do much damage so SO is helpful at a point when the player is still learning about the different weapons, maneuvering, flux management, and so forth. But once you get to harder opponents, or fighting bigger fleets, having to absorb a lot more incoming damage, while outputting your own, becomes a much bigger issue. At that point, weapon range and ways to prevent incoming damage (such as EMP/Xyphos) become more important. So the more effective fleets start naturally moving away from using SO as the player encounters more difficult enemies. To me that naturally keeps the power of SO "in check".

A lot of the discussion focuses on the flux dissipation, but ignore the costs associated with SO, which are specifically there to balance out the flux dissipation increase. It essentially gives more flux dissipation and takes away flux capacity. That needs to be considered when looking at SO.

Also, it seems like a lot of people base their opinions on how the player makes use of the ships, as opposed to the AI. The player is much better at evaluating risks and forecasting than the AI, so SO is much stronger in the player's hands than AI. I look primarily at how AI uses it, and particularly under the condition that none of my ships die in combat.

The AI is much more sensitive to % of total flux compared with the player -- it's easy enough to go into sim, equip a Heavy Blaster (higher flux usage) and a Pulse Laser (lower flux usage) and other weapons, set the ship on autopilot, and then watch the AI flicker on and off autofire on different weapons based on how full its flux bar currently is. The AI is going to be more skittish about having autofire on with more expensive weapons when the flux bar goes up, while cheaper weapons will stay on longer. So when an AI SO ship goes in, and absorbs a lot of damage on the way in, it tends to turn off the higher DPS weapons first -- which are precisely the weapons that you want the ship to be using (to maximize damage before having to back off). So the AI tends to not make full use of SO's capabilities, particularly when not enough OP are put into flux capacity.

The player however tends to run the flux bar up higher in regular usage, since the player is better at forecasting. So the player might see SO as very powerful since it's very good in the player's hands, but that's not necessarily the case when used by the AI.

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

While the discussion has focused on the SO Hyperion, the long CR decay making the PPT decrease a non-factor for SO is an issue with SO ships in general, not the Hyperion in particular. It's just the most extreme because of the ship's very low PPT with SO.
Logged

BaBosa

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2023, 07:56:18 AM »

I’ve always seen the reduced range to be the counterpart to the speed buff just like with unstable injectors. That extra speed means you can dodge, out manoeuvre or just charge through enemy fire so done well you don’t need so much extra capacity or defensive hullmods.

Your ships won’t cycle out as much if they’re killing the enemy faster. Lower percentage isn’t a problem if the increased damage output compensates for it.

Analysis of SO’s performance cannot ignore the speed boost too.

If made active, SO will almost certainly keep the reduced weapon range and since it doesn’t need to take travel time into account, the PPT and CR penalties can be made much more severe so while you can wait for a perfect opportunity, you won’t be able to take many of them and you can’t wait too long since PPT/CR is constantly draining.

If SO is to reduce CR time as well as PPT then the penalty should be reduced to like maybe 1/2 each.

One thing to remember about SO is that it can’t be put on capital ships and that really limits its effectiveness in end game fights.
Logged

IonDragonX

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2023, 08:34:28 PM »

The thought I had about it - and it's not fully fleshed out, and I'm not fully committed to doing this, so, big disclaimer/grain of salt - is to change SO to function as an active ability instead of a constant passive buff.
I am very glad that you are considering this as an active ability. It makes a lot of sense to me, lore-wise.
Logged

Doctorhealsgood

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2023, 12:05:47 PM »

The CR decay reduction from skill/hullmods is what really makes SO annoying in my opinion - it's just a massive increase in time they are on the field.

One possible solution is to increase the PPT time bonus from hardened subsystems and combat endurance, but remove the CR decay reduction. SO already cuts addition PPT time by 2/3 so this proportionally benefits them less, and SO could even gain a normalized/scaling reduction in the same manner that it has for range.

Another possible solution is to remove the CR decay reduction hullmod/skill and have SO reduce PPT to 0 (multiplying by 0 so boosters do nothing), but have it reduce decay to something reasonable. That way ships with SO immediately begin ticking down and decaying: how long they last can be tuned by what their decay rate is. When using or fighting SO ships, the player has an immediate indication of how long they will last (the CR ticking down), and this should normalize how long SO lasts - the decay can be tuned by ship class to make it balanced as opposed to riding off of the 'regular' ship PPT which can vary.
Conceptually the idea of the ship to start breaking down immediately on a combat scenario because you broke the obvious safety features is something i love. What i don't love is that this implementation completely makes the skills related to keeping the ship together null and void. It is not a nice feel if that makes sense. Would personally have the hypothetical active version of SO and burn my ship at my own pace instead.
Logged
Quote from: Doctorhealsgood
Sometimes i feel like my brain has been hit by salamanders not gonna lie.

psyx

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #85 on: January 22, 2023, 09:15:18 AM »

Delicate machinery could have special interaction with SO such as bigger penalties or additional penalty like effect of "Ill-Advised Modifications". There are already mods that have additional penalties under some circumstances, expanding this approach would be better than outright blocking the options.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #86 on: January 22, 2023, 11:04:46 AM »

Faster CR decay from Delicate Machinery is already penalty enough for low PPT ships who try to fight during CR decay.
Logged

Lortus

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #87 on: January 22, 2023, 04:21:08 PM »

If SO is removed and replaced with something else, a ton of stuff would need to be reworked that used to rely on SO. I hope Alex is also considering that.

Aside from that, I think the real issue people seem to have with SO is:
1. It's OP.
2. It's not very interesting to build.

To answer 1, the obvious solution would be to just make the CR decay matter. This seems to be what Alex is already doing in his rework, by making it reduce PPT per use. I am not sure if Alex intends to keep the range decreasing part of SO in his new version. If he does then the ship would basically need to spam the ability to be useful, which would just result in it being SO but less uptime and probably running out faster. If he doesn't then it just completely invalidates low range builds and is basically a stat buff for every other build.
I would find it cool if SO became a ramming system, making you charge at a nearby ship at the cost of PPT and maybe flux, while also having a weaker version of SO as part of the hullmod. I know Alex doesn't like ramming (if ramming is a no-go zone then some system that gets the ship closer to the enemy could do it) but I think it keeps SO weapons viable, while complimenting the unsafe playstyle. I think the current subsystem Alex is considering is frankly, kinda boring, and it doesn't seem reckless or unsafe at all.
To answer 2, and potentially to add onto the active system idea, you could even increase the threshold to 600, allowing multiple range brackets of weapons to be installable on SO ships: 600 range, 300 range, maybe even 450 range bracket too. 600 range weapons would be more viable without using the extra system while the 300 range weapons would need to use the system more to be viable, allowing you to "choose" the level of unsafeness. This also solves the issue of not being interesting to build, and becomes more like normal ship building, where there are multiple range brackets and weapon types.
I think by combining that and by adding a couple extra weapons to compliment this range split, SO could become far more interesting to build. I think the real reason that SO is "boring" to build (allegedly), is half the fault of SO limiting your range to just 1 range bracket, but also partly the fault of a lack of options in the weapons. Most weapon sizes and types have only 2 weapons you can put in the mount. Just adding more would make things more interesting.

Also I think that factoring the Hyperion into an argument about SO is just ridiculous. Hyperion is insanely broken on it's own because of it's system not at all because of SO. SO just allows it to use the system. Other than the Hyperion there isn't an SO boat that is so much better than other ships that don't run SO that it invalidates using a non SO playstyle. For instance SO Glimmer, Champion, Fury etc do not invalidate using long range Eradicators, Gryphons, or non SO Glimmers. I think the only other big outlier is Monitor, but that's just because Monitor is just as obscenely broken as the Hyperion.
Logged

BaBosa

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: What could be done with Safety Overrides
« Reply #88 on: January 22, 2023, 04:59:48 PM »

I’m wondering if instead of a range debuff, SO could dramatically lower accuracy and increase recoil, including making beams jitter. Or maybe have both but not so severe.

SO will be less boring when it can be mixed with non-SO ships which will be made a lot easier by making it an active ability.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]