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: Anubis-class Cruiser (12/20/24)

Author Topic: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field  (Read 889 times)

Lawrence Master-blaster

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
    • View Profile
Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« on: May 12, 2023, 11:09:25 AM »

I think that was suggested before, but can we have an alternate version of AGF that only gives +1 Burn to have more flexibility when trying to mach speed of various ships. Especially now that S-modding AGF increases Burn bonus to +3, it's quite bizarre to have a Burn 10 Paragon when I only wanted it to be as fast as my Burn 8 cruisers.

It could be in the 5/10/15/25 OP tier so it would still be slightly worse than ADF(8/16/24/40) per OP spent.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
    • View Profile
Re: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2023, 11:21:41 AM »

With Invictus, I think I would like to keep +2 Augmented Engines now.  Invictus has burn 6, less than every other battleship.

+1 burn is nice, but not if it means replacing the +2 version.
Logged

Realm

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2023, 08:26:26 PM »

Funnily, with Invictus and essentially every time I use ADF (Atlas/Prometheus), I only want +1 burn so it matches my other capitals sitting at a comfortable 7. Having a lesser version of the mod with lower OP cost (25 instead of 40?) would be a wonderful option.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
Re: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2023, 12:43:20 AM »

Yep, lack of cheaper +1 ADF hampers possible fleet compositions. Some ships are not worth using purely because they can't match fleet speed efficiently.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
    • View Profile
Re: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2023, 03:55:11 AM »

In my case, everything else was burn 8, and I needed the +2 burn for Invictus to keep up.

Maybe the best solution is to simply lower ADF's OP cost.  It has no combat power at all, so normal cost like 5/10/15/25 is already a big sacrifice like the Neural I* hullmods, let alone Heavy Armor level costs.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 03:59:34 AM by Megas »
Logged

Zr0Potential

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2023, 02:37:39 AM »

Try the Attuned Drive Field mod
Logged

BaBosa

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
    • View Profile
Re: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2023, 04:52:25 AM »

This has been asked of Alex before and his reply then was roughly that he didn't want it to be cheap, easy or convenient to have ships match speeds. He has deliberately only given us an expensive +2 burn to make ships different burn speeds matter more than just a small OP tax.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12540
    • View Profile
Re: Slightly-Less-Augmented Drive Field
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2023, 05:11:51 AM »

With the meager OP no s-mod baseline ships are generally given, every campaign-only hullmod is an expensive OP (or s-mod) tax regardless of actual OP cost, except for civilians that have no business fighting.  Some ships can eat the tax at the cost of combat power.

This is what makes Neural Link so lame, the OP tax from Neural Interface (let alone Neural Integration) on two ships just to uplift one NPC ship to match an automated ship with a core.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2023, 05:14:08 AM by Megas »
Logged