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: New music for Galatia Academy (06/12/24)

Author Topic: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL  (Read 883 times)

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3806
    • View Profile
Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« on: March 30, 2023, 11:52:26 AM »

So, having recently once again dispensed my standard advice of "If you can afford the OP cost of a Tachyon Lance, use that over the HIL every time", and got to thinking - what would make the HIL more competitive?

So there are two things that I think would help the HIL out, comparatively, without making dramatic changes:
1: Reduce its flux cost. Something like, say, 400 flux/s rather than the current 500? Even just 450-ish would be nice, make it so the TL isn't the lower-flux-cost option of the two.
2: Increase its turn rate, or perhaps make it so that it doesn't slow down turning while firing? This might be too oppressive against frigates, though; not sure. Would require testing.

Ideally, I'd like to see both of these changes happen... but I'll admit that that much increased turn rate might be a step too far. Still, the flux cost reduction would be a good start, and would certainly make an HIL Sunder an actually tempting option compared to a TL Sunder.

(Alternatively, if we want to keep the HIL the same, perhaps a small increase in the flux cost of the Tachyon Lance & Rift Cascade Emitter? I'd rather not, though, I like how those weapons work right now...)
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2023, 11:58:05 AM »

Why do you hate the Vanguard  >:(

On a serious note, I somewhat agree. Flux cost reduction wouldn't be out of line since the weapon is pretty limited in a lot of ways. But I seriously wouldn't touch the turn rate.

And that's just the nature of beams in Starsector, burst beams are generally more useful since you can pretty much ignore the soft flux issue if you have enough firepower. Standard beams require support and a lot more time hitting the target. Not saying they're bad, but this is why people prefer burst beams.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12228
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2023, 12:52:11 PM »

Lances do not need to be nerfed just to make HIL relatively better.

Currently, the strongest enemies (Ordos) rely heavily on shields.  Would be nice if there were armor reliant endgame enemies (with maybe no/weak shields) on par with Ordos.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24416
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2023, 01:06:57 PM »

Hmm, yeah, this definitely tracks with my recent experience playtesting. Changed it to 400 flux/second; that sounds reasonable. I don't think it needs any more than that, it's already pretty good and it *is* cheaper than the TL.
Logged

llama

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2023, 01:38:17 PM »

Nearly every workhorse weapon that had a 1.0 flux ratio has been buffed to 0.8... so can we bring Heavy Autocannon along too? :D
Logged

Jackundor

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2023, 01:57:23 PM »

mfw hephag still has only a recoil buff planned
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2023, 02:09:20 PM »

Nearly every workhorse weapon that had a 1.0 flux ratio has been buffed to 0.8... so can we bring Heavy Autocannon along too? :D
All such weapons were energy, so I don't see the correlation here. Besides it's nice for the gap to become a bit less extreme, so that high tech ships rely less on min-maxing flux stats and midline ships actually have a choice for builds.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

llama

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2023, 03:30:47 PM »

Nearly every workhorse weapon that had a 1.0 flux ratio has been buffed to 0.8... so can we bring Heavy Autocannon along too? :D
All such weapons were energy, so I don't see the correlation here. Besides it's nice for the gap to become a bit less extreme, so that high tech ships rely less on min-maxing flux stats and midline ships actually have a choice for builds.
Well I'm also thinking of the Light Autocannons and the Mark IX, which are comparable weapons.
Logged

Draba

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2023, 03:56:48 PM »

So, having recently once again dispensed my standard advice of "If you can afford the OP cost of a Tachyon Lance, use that over the HIL every time", and got to thinking - what would make the HIL more competitive?
...
Ideally, I'd like to see both of these changes happen... but I'll admit that that much increased turn rate might be a step too far. Still, the flux cost reduction would be a good start, and would certainly make an HIL Sunder an actually tempting option compared to a TL Sunder.
Hmm, yeah, this definitely tracks with my recent experience playtesting. Changed it to 400 flux/second; that sounds reasonable. I don't think it needs any more than that, it's already pretty good and it *is* cheaper than the TL.
The combination of slow beam extension and slow turnrate makes HIL unreliable (and often annoying) to see in AI hands.
Between allies getting close to the beam and target switches it often gets locked in situations where it's not hitting anything for 10+ seconds, despite having plenty of mid-large targets in arc.
Would be nice to make it more reliable instead, but the reduced flux makes advanced turret gyros free and then some so also helps a lot.
I think on some ships (Apogee, Odyssey) paired with squalls it's already better than tachyon lance so not too much needed either way.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2023, 03:58:49 PM by Draba »
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2023, 07:40:13 PM »

In my balance sheets, HIL has had a range of 800, damage of 475 and flux /second of 400 for the last three years (so the ratio's 0.84, if anybody cares).

That's been totally fine, as it only trades Flux efficiently by the slimmest of margins, and it's a Large Energy Slot, so it's not like there are ships with dozens of them mounted, at least in Vanilla.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Draba

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2023, 08:19:10 PM »

In my balance sheets, HIL has had a range of 800, damage of 475 and flux /second of 400 for the last three years (so the ratio's 0.84, if anybody cares).

That's been totally fine, as it only trades Flux efficiently by the slimmest of margins, and it's a Large Energy Slot, so it's not like there are ships with dozens of them mounted, at least in Vanilla.
Reducing HIL range to 800 is a massive nerf, not a surprise it wasn't OP :)
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2023, 09:24:25 PM »

It's not OP over here because all beams do Hard Flux in my private version of Rebal. For Vanilla balance, 1000 range is still totally fine; it makes up for the Soft Flux penalty somewhat.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2023, 09:49:07 PM »

Hmm, yeah, this definitely tracks with my recent experience playtesting. Changed it to 400 flux/second; that sounds reasonable. I don't think it needs any more than that, it's already pretty good and it *is* cheaper than the TL.
Is it  possible to apply "the_new_mining_blaster" logic (by description it fires against hull not shield) also on HIL ?

Such logic  could make HIL an efficient weapon  for his task.  e.i. not simple power creep but rather make it  more specific usage. Rather  than blasting at everything, avoid shields,(perhaps even remove fighters from valid target list) > focus at destroying armour.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2023, 09:56:30 PM by gG_pilot »
Logged

Lawrence Master-blaster

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 691
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2023, 10:01:40 PM »

Oh my, Ion Beams with 25% less flux and now HIL with 20% less flux as well? My all-beam Champion is turning into quite the monster.

So, having recently once again dispensed my standard advice of "If you can afford the OP cost of a Tachyon Lance, use that over the HIL every time", and got to thinking - what would make the HIL more competitive?

What already makes HIL competetive is that AI is incompetent with slow firing, hard hitting weapons. And Tachyon Lance is THE slow firing, hard hitting weapon.
Logged

Draba

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
Re: Reduce Flux Cost of HIL
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2023, 05:19:30 AM »

What already makes HIL competetive is that AI is incompetent with slow firing, hard hitting weapons. And Tachyon Lance is THE slow firing, hard hitting weapon.
HIL also has its own quirk, after it has turned to target it has a minor windup before continuous damage starts.
Once the trigger is pulled ballistics/tach will get the damage out, AI HIL might get disrupted or not do much if the window is short.
Similar to an IPDAI tac laser against lots of missiles, just in slow motion.
I also think it's a good weapon and use it more often than tach, but it does need some patience :)
Logged