Consumable carry capciaty too big for fighters?

[THE_TrashMan]

To carry 100 laser towers or mines in a fighter?
Not only is it supremely stupid, given the size, but it allows too many cheap tricks.

For setting up minefield and laser tower fields, you would need M or L class ships. A fighter should be able to carry no more than a few mines/towers - perhaps 5, but even that seems too much.

[mr.WHO]

This is the part of greater problem of generic/default/copy/paste values for many ship parameters like:
- deployables count
- missile storage
- drone storage
- S/M storage
- flare storage


Egosoft never toughed these since 1.0 bar a few rare exception and some (not all) DLC ships

[GCU Grey Area]

Capacity needs to be at least a couple of dozen or so. My primary use for deployables when flying an S fighter is setting up satellite networks & that needs a minimum of 19 adv sats for each sector to get full coverage (assuming default sector boundary). Would certainly not want to be frequently flying back to my destroyer to get more if I could only carry 5 of them at a time. That would get annoying very fast. Current capacity of 50 (it's not 100, that's M ships) means I can carry enough for a couple of sectors, with enough space left over for a few each of the other deployables, so I can also take any deployment missions I might spot along the way.

[sh1pman]

This is the part of greater problem of generic/default/copy/paste values for many ship parameters like:
- deployables count
- missile storage
- drone storage
- S/M storage
- flare storage


Egosoft never toughed these since 1.0 bar a few rare exception and some (not all) DLC ships

It's because touching them would probably break some old saves or strategies. Same with sector sunlight values in old sectors.

[Raptor34]

This is the part of greater problem of generic/default/copy/paste values for many ship parameters like:
- deployables count
- missile storage
- drone storage
- S/M storage
- flare storage


Egosoft never toughed these since 1.0 bar a few rare exception and some (not all) DLC ships

It's because touching them would probably break some old saves or strategies. Same with sector sunlight values in old sectors.

CV change shows it's because they just want to avoid players whining that their stuff get's nerfed. And well, no one uses CVs so those are easier to change.

[GCU Grey Area]

CV change shows it's because they just want to avoid players whining that their stuff get's nerfed. And well, no one uses CVs so those are easier to change.

Disagree, think that change indicates there may be potential save game compatibility issues.

They did not, for example, take the opportunity to change hanger capacity for most of the new builders. It's still 40xS & 10xM, presumably just in case some of the players had stuffed their builders full of S or M ships. Only builder to which they gave a substantially lower hanger capacity was the new Boron one. Safe to do that because no one had one of those yet.

Number of turrets & shields are also identical to the previous versions (again except for the new Boron one), where one might otherwise perhaps expect the Split builder to have only one shield, to bring it more in line with how Split generally build their ships. If anything the change to builders indicates which factors they can safely change (number of engines does vary) & which are more problematic to adjust.

[A5PECT]

One part of construction vessels saw non-standardized balance changes: engine count. The Mammoth and Heracles have two XL engines, but all other construction ships only have one. A minor difference, it very slightly changes the build cost of the latter, and changes their acceleration/deceleration values. But it shows that adding/removing ship components is technically possible without breaking save games.

I suspect that lowering internal hangar capacities is possible, as well. IIRC, in X3 it was possible to lower a carrier's hangar capacity with a patch. Any instances of that carrier having more ships docked to it than the updated stats allowed would simply keep those ships stored, but not be allowed to dock any new ships until enough of them undocked to bring its internal capacity below its new maximum value.

[GCU Grey Area]

I suspect that lowering internal hangar capacities is possible...

If so, I'm puzzled why they didn't do that. They clearly think builders should have relatively small hangers (new Boron builder has only 2xS & 2xM internal ship capacity), yet the replacements for all the other builders stuck with the old 40xS & 10xM.

[Raptor34]

I suspect that lowering internal hangar capacities is possible...

If so, I'm puzzled why they didn't do that. They clearly think builders should have relatively small hangers (new Boron builder has only 2xS & 2xM internal ship capacity), yet the replacements for all the other builders stuck with the old 40xS & 10xM.

Maybe they didn't want to touch actual practical stats. Now it isn't practical for use, but those stats are something that matters more than engine numbers.

[A5PECT]

If so, I'm puzzled why they didn't do that. They clearly think builders should have relatively small hangers (new Boron builder has only 2xS & 2xM internal ship capacity), yet the replacements for all the other builders stuck with the old 40xS & 10xM.

There's a similar discrepancy with the Paranid E line of capital ships; they have much more modest hangar capacities that are more closely aligned with their landing pad count than the capital ship designs that came with the game at launch. I can only conclude they don't want to touch existing ships because of presumed backlash from players. Beating around the bush like this creates the disjointed gameplay design and balance we have now. IMO, it would be better for the long term health of the game if Egosoft bit the bullet and did a full rebalance pass.

[Falcrack]

In order for players to have sensible, well balanced adjustments to.things such as this, they must unfortunately rely on mods such as VRO. Fortunately the creator of this mod was hired by Egosoft, so perhaps he will be allowed to influence future decisions regarding such things. But I have the feeling that the big boss (Bernd) is a bit set in his ways regarding any changes that could affect save game compatibility.

[GCU Grey Area]

Maybe they didn't want to touch actual practical stats. Now it isn't practical for use, but those stats are something that matters more than engine numbers.

Engines are also treated as a single element in the ship builder interface, no matter how many engines a ship's got. Perhaps that makes it easier to adjust?

There's a similar discrepancy with the Paranid E line of capital ships; they have much more modest hangar capacities that are more closely aligned with their landing pad count than the capital ship designs that came with the game at launch. I can only conclude they don't want to touch existing ships because of presumed backlash from players. But imo, it would be much better for the long term health of the game if they ripped the bandaid off.

Not convinced. Those were entirely new ships, rather than direct replacements for ships already in active use in the game. Not a comparable situation to the change to builders. They could give the new E ships whatever stats they wanted to & it wasn't going to break the game for people using the old Paranid ships. Would also note the new Paranid builders have exactly the same hanger capacity as the old ones, rather than using a similar docks:hanger capacity ratio as the E ships. Consequently suspect this isn't something that's easy to change, at least until X5 when they'll have an opportunity to make radical changes without the risk of breaking saves.

[Raptor34]

Maybe they didn't want to touch actual practical stats. Now it isn't practical for use, but those stats are something that matters more than engine numbers.

Engines are also treated as a single element in the ship builder interface, no matter how many engines a ship's got. Perhaps that makes it easier to adjust?

There's a similar discrepancy with the Paranid E line of capital ships; they have much more modest hangar capacities that are more closely aligned with their landing pad count than the capital ship designs that came with the game at launch. I can only conclude they don't want to touch existing ships because of presumed backlash from players. But imo, it would be much better for the long term health of the game if they ripped the bandaid off.

Not convinced. Those were entirely new ships, rather than direct replacements for ships already in active use in the game. Not a comparable situation to the change to builders. They could give the new E ships whatever stats they wanted to & it wasn't going to break the game for people using the old Paranid ships. Would also note the new Paranid builders have exactly the same hanger capacity as the old ones, rather than using a similar docks:hanger capacity ratio as the E ships. Consequently suspect this isn't something that's easy to change, at least until X5 when they'll have an opportunity to make radical changes without the risk of breaking saves.

And look at how people complained about the Zeus E's hangar capacity.
My opinion is they looked at that. Then pat themselves on the back for being smart and doing a E pass rather than touching existing ships.

[mr.WHO]

If so, I'm puzzled why they didn't do that.

I'm asking myself same question when they did rebalance Large Turrets and destroyer batteries, but stubbonly ignore medium turrets to this day

[GCU Grey Area]

I'm asking myself same question when they did rebalance Large Turrets and destroyer batteries, but stubbonly ignore medium turrets to this day

Suspect it's the opportunity cost of the dev time to implement & test what would probably be relatively small changes to low damage weapons, i.e. the difference it would make would not justify the time it would take. Don't think it's a case of them stubbornly ignoring M turrets, but rather that they've been busy doing other stuff.

[mr.WHO]

Suspect it's the opportunity cost of the dev time to implement & test what would probably be relatively small changes to low damage weapons, i.e. the difference it would make would not justify the time it would take. Don't think it's a case of them stubbornly ignoring M turrets, but rather that they've been busy doing other stuff.

And yet, the damn Borons are the only one who have usable medium turrets (that are not Argon flak ).

[GCU Grey Area]

And yet, the damn Borons are the only one who have usable medium turrets (that are not Argon flak ).

Well that is the one case where they'd decided that the faction should have entirely unique weapons tech. Not sure I approve of the Boron turrets though, reckon they're a bit too good for Boron weapons tech (particularly Ion Pulse).

As for Flak, very rarely use it myself. Tend to play by fairly strict one faction at a time rules, so would only put Flak turrets on Argon or Split ships & it's been quite a while since I last played the game as either of those. Instead tend to prefer Beam turrets for my capitals & Shard on M ships. Both work well enough for my purposes.

[sh1pman]

Shard on M ships

Shard!? IMO the absolute worst M turret type in the game, are they even capable of stopping shield regen on small fighters?

[Pesanur]

And look at how people complained about the Zeus E's hangar capacity.
My opinion is they looked at that. Then pat themselves on the back for being smart and doing a E pass rather than touching existing ships.

But this was because the Zeus E is one of the biggest carriers in the game, and at the same time, the one with the less hangar capacity.

Instead, CV's and destroyers have excessive hangar capacity.

[GCU Grey Area]

Shard!? IMO the absolute worst M turret type in the game, are they even capable of stopping shield regen on small fighters?

Yes, Shard turrets can kill S fighters, just need to be at close enough range. However since I generally have 1 or 2 Shards as my main guns on M ships that's the sort of range I prefer to be at anyway. Tend to have my turrets on M ships set to 'attack current enemy' & essentially the Shard turrets just add extra shot to the blast my main guns are putting out. Effect on S ships is a secondary consideration though. I primarily fit Shard turrets because I want something that does higher damage than Beam, Pulse or Bolt for use against M targets & bigger, but is still a general purpose turret (i.e. not Plasma).