Ok first thing, wow quick response! Updating now.
Re: Class feedback :: Oh I know to be perfectly matched you should check your shield and laser values ... but unless you use a mod that gives spreadsheets for that, its not that convenient ... yes, I know I'm lazy, but so are most people
The script does in-essence provide this information in the form of the in-game manual/encyclopedia. It seems to be impossible for a script to be able to determine the weapon recharge rates for any given ship without deriving it from real-time data thus the current quoting of performance limits is probably the best that can be done for now.
However, the in-game manuals (available from the in-game encyclopedia) should be sufficient to provide the user with enough in-game information to be able to make an informed decision about what level of system they require. Failing that, the user can always use trial and error by upgrading the system in steps till the performance is at the level required (minising the need to RTFM).
As a counter to your request for highlighting class information for each performance level, it should be noted that doing so would provide very little benefit relative to the amount of effort/resources required to implement what you suggest. Thus any such additional information will be provided through one mechanism only... the in-game manuals.
creidiki wrote:You said you don't want to tune the running levels based on ship stats, but how about limiting the upgrade levels available based on ship stats?
Lower levels of performance are basically pointless as the class/perfmance of your ship gets higher and the Higher levels are not sustainable as actual performance of the system is restricted by the recharge rates of the ship.
The nominal 6 levels of performance are based on the shield capacities for the relevant ships.
- Level 1 = 100kW = 10% of a 1MJ shield per second
Level 2 = 500kW = 10% of a 5MJ shield per second
Level 3 = 2.5MW = 10% of a 25MJ shield per second
Level 4 = 20MW = 10% of a 200MJ shield per second
Level 5 = 100MW = 10% of a 1GJ shield per second
Level 6 = 200MW = 10% of a 2GJ shield per second
Of course, this has biggest effect when transfering shield energy to weapons (draining the available shields to power the weapons) since shield energy is typical many times bigger than available weapons energy. Given this, only 10% of the shield energy drained is actually passed on to the weapons resulting in the following additional weapon recharge boosts.
- Level 1 = 10kW = about 30% increase over the typical M5 for a typical sacrifice of upto ~3% of their shields per second
Level 2 = 50kW = about 100% increase over the typical M4 for a typical sacrifice of upto ~3% of their shields per second
Level 3 = 250kW = about 150% increase over the typical M3 (or about 125% increase over the typical M3+) for a sacrifice of upto ~3% of their shields per second
Level 4 = 2MW = about 400% increase over the typical M6 (or about 200% increase over the typical M6+) for a sacrifice of upto 2-3% of their shields per second
Level 5 = 10MW = about 1250% increase over the typical M1 (or about 625% increase over the typical M7) for a sacrifice of upto 1-2.5% of their shields per second
Level 6 = 20MW = about 500% increase over the typical M2 for a sacrifice of upto 2-3% of their shields per second
As you can probably tell from this the balance is not as simple as a curve. From the above M7s and M1s get the biggest gain for the lowest perceived sacrifice where as fighters are reasonably consistent in their performance. I personally like the balance as is but I will think on it and try to come up with a compromise.
creidiki wrote:My first thought on balancing is that the 100% efficiency is fine at low levels of redirection, but it should decrease as you go higher.
Efficiency of Shields --> Weapons is already 10% regardless of the class (this was value was reached during play testing of the CPLS). Only the redirection of Weapons --> Shields is 100% efficient and continued performance of the PTMS is restricted by what is sustainable by the ship it'self. For instance, your system might have an upper transfer limit of 200MW but if your ship only has a 5kW weapon generator then the shield recharge rate will be only 5kW after the weapon batteries are exhausted.
creidiki wrote:I've never turned it up nearly as high, but I think 50% efficiency at 100% redirection is probably a good starting value. Of course I'm not talking a linear thing, quadratic will probably do the trick?
I think ~100% efficiency is fine up to oh, 25-30%? and then it should start to drop off, so that you can use the PMTS to adjust your ship's offence/defence balance on the fly, but you can't do silly things like double you weapons/shield recharge.
The 100% redirection is in fact a utilization limit based on the system installed (See the new Sit Rep and status subtitle text as it now reports the effective rate of shield drain).
creidiki wrote:Iunno, just shooting out figures based on gut feelings here, I need to play more with different classes to get something more definite, but right now I'm flying a Skiron, and redirecting 50% shield to weapons makes it a little silly for corporate missions ...
Depends on your oponents, your aiming accurancy, your ability to dodge incoming fire, what weapons you are using, etc.
For some M6s the PMTS may appear to make them unbalanced (but the question is... were they balanced in the first place?). Like the CPLS, the PMTS will not appeal to all players, and I must admit that my target audience is the CPLS balance type people. With that in mind, the balance is intended to be consistent with the CPLS.
At this time the PMTS does not sustain any damage under any circumstances and I have not yet come up with a sensible damage policy yet (still thinking on it but it is this area that is likely to be the prime target for balancing - or something similar). I will probably implement a first cut of this kind of balancing in the next release (damage may or may not be implemented in the same way as the CPLS).