[MOD-TC]Ship Rebalance Mod:Continued v1.10b (27/6/11): Now Discontinued...

[paulwheeler]

I've now downloaded the upcoming 2.6 cat/dat release candidate from L3 and there are some conflicts with the SRM, mostly to do with the bug fix mod and the trail packs.

I'm going to start work on compatiblity now so hopefully it'll be ready when 2.6 is officially released. There are two crucial files which need updating in the SRM so running 2.6 with the current SRM will undoubtably cause problems.


---DO NOT UPGRADE YOUR X3 TO 2.6 WHEN ITS RELEASED IF YOU ARE RUNNING THE SRM UNTIL I HAVE COMPLETED COMPATIBLITY---


Hopefully you won't have to wait long.

[Mareel]

Greeting's

I'm really enjoying the mod but i have come across a problem.

I have recently started a new game using 0.66 and the cockpit mod.I have just bought a Mercury tanker in Argon prime and everything looks good until i undock.The cockpit appears to be sitting inside the structure of the ship.

The only other mods i use apart from the above is the commercial agent and Dusty's complex positioning mod.

Thanks again for continuing the work on the mod.

[paulwheeler]

Hi Mareel,

This just means the cockpit needs repositioning. There are so many ships its impossible to test them all so I have to fix problems as we find them.

Good news is its a really easy fix.

I'll add it to the list and it'll be sorted in the next update.

----------

Regarding the engine fixes - I've fixed the Vali engine positions. I've also just worked through all the Falcon varients and they all now have correctly positioned trails.

I had a quick look around and there are lots of ships that need their trail positions sorted - probably too many to do in one go. So my aim is to get all the Teladi ships done for the next update. Then I'll start on the Split.

[Mareel]

Hi Mareel,

This just means the cockpit needs repositioning. There are so many ships its impossible to test them all so I have to fix problems as we find them.

Good news is its a really easy fix.

I'll add it to the list and it'll be sorted in the next update.

No worries mate,it's not a big problem as i saved before i bought it.I'll get myself a hauler instead.

Looking forward to the next version.Doing a cracking job so far from what i've seen.

[djrygar]

not absolutely sure if it's SRM fault, but I see readtext on Titan (and only titan).

does anyone else see that or its just me..?

[paulwheeler]

Titan is fine for me. I don't think the srm would cause this.

[Mareel]

As i usually play a trade only game i'm loving the changes to the freighters.The increased cargo capacity and variation between haulers and tankers etc in regard to weight class is a long overdue change to the game imo.

One thing i did notice though was the change to the Mistral super freighter.
The 12k cargo capacity makes it somewhat redundant as a player ship to be honest.It's quick but that is negated somewhat once a jump drive is equipped and it's cargo bay is dwarfed by my Vulture XL at 16k plus it's a lot more expensive.

It used to be one of the must have's but i wouldnt swap my vulture for it atm.How about keeping the high spec and making it extremely expensive to buy so it isnt spammed?

It's just an idea mate hope you dont think i'm being too critical.

Quality job so far.

[paulwheeler]

Sounds like a good idea. I'll put it on the list for the next update. It makes sense that teladi ships should be the best for trading and thus, in a competetive economy would probably be the most expensive .

[Mareel]

It must be a tricky job this balancing lark.I dont envy you doing it.

I was talking about the Mistral though when i was talking about keeping the higher spec (cargo wise) and hiking the price considerably.

I think you have retained the feel of the Teladi Vulture line in terms of spec and Price very well with the changes you have made.Engine wise they use cheap outdated technology with the only concern being the massive cargo bay.Fits in very well with Teladi philosophy.

OTAS on the other hand looking at their other ships utilise high tech equipment with the latest in engine technology and high build quality.While not having the huge cargo bays of the teladi may i suggest keeping the higher spec of the Mistral Super freighter and all the advantages that bring's but being an OTAS ship be made too pay through the nose for it.A 4-5 million price tag?

These are just suggestions and ideas mate,feel free to disregard them.

PS: I noticed in a few shipyards that the freighter and TP class ship models M and L are duplicated in both spec and price.

Just passing on some feedback - All the best.

[paulwheeler]

Hi Mareel,

The suggestions are much appreciated. I agree about Otas being the most advanced but very expensive. That is why I gave the Boreas back a few turrets after the original SRM severely "nerfed" it. It was onw of the most expensive so should be up there as the best.

I will look at increasing the prices of the Mistrals. I'll also have a look at the other TS ships to make sure they are all balanced.

I don't think the original SRM used price as a balancing mechanism, but I think it can be a great way of enabling some ships to be better than others without destroying the balance. I will use price more and more I think.

To be honest I think prices need to be increased exponentially across the board. At the moment the costs are so close everyone always goes for the best regardless. However, this would be a LOT of work to do this across the board.

If you have any more suggestions please let me know.

By the way - I have now added engine trails in the correct places for all Falcons, Harriers and Buzzards. I will hopefully have all the Teladi engines sorted for the next release.

[paulwheeler]

By the way, I will still be implimenting the jumpdrive ware size change . I will create two optional packs, one with the jumpdrive changed to L and one at XL.

However, the 2.6 patch changes the file required so I will wait for the official release to impliment it.

[Gazz]

I don't think the original SRM used price as a balancing mechanism

Not really because credits quickly become irrelevant in X3 once your economy gets in gear.
Whether a freighter costs 1 or 3 millions isn't really noticable. Usefulness and location (how far to the next jumpdrive sales point...) start to weigh more.

This is even worse for military ships where it's less work to outfit/maintain fewer "best" ships and 50 millions give or take are a drop in the bucket.

If you'd like to boost OTAS ships without giving them "real" stuff, think about giving them more built-in components, such as transporter or jumpdrive.
(going overboard would be problematic for Lucike's CAG or CODEA, which are configured through ship software to some degree)

[Mareel]

Not really because credits quickly become irrelevant in X3 once your economy gets in gear.
Whether a freighter costs 1 or 3 millions isn't really noticable. Usefulness and location (how far to the next jumpdrive sales point...) start to weigh more.

I agree with that to an extent but as a bit of a tight arse myself price would certainly be a factor along with speed and cargo capacity.I'd be looking for ways to save a few quid and still get my freighters to their new homebase
I understand where your coming from but i still think price is an important part of balancing along with spec.

[vkerinav]

With an increase in the jumpdrive's cargo class, making them built-in on certain fighters(M3s only; OTAS, Terran, perhaps even the advanced variants; not prototypes) would certainly give them a unique advantage. I like the idea.

There's just one issue; the Tanker-variant freighters won't be able to carry a jumpdrive--perhaps they could use an additional speed boost to compensate?

I doubt this'll be a popular suggestion, but what about increasing the size of scanner upgrades as well, to M for duplex and L for triplex(or even XL)? I find it rather odd that a capital ship often has the same scanner range as a scout.

One last thing; there's a Large OWP listed under 'player' that appears to be a Terran OWP(There's one in the Asteroid Belt). Its stats are much worse than the commonwealth version, and the weapons compatibility isn't right.

[OOZ662]

With an increase in the jumpdrive's cargo class, making them built-in on certain fighters(M3s only; OTAS, Terran, perhaps even the advanced variants; not prototypes) would certainly give them a unique advantage. I like the idea.

There's just one issue; the Tanker-variant freighters won't be able to carry a jumpdrive--perhaps they could use an additional speed boost to compensate?

I believe that even if you make equipment "built-in," if it's too big for the cargo class of the ship it still doesn't get included. But that's a memory from a while ago, so it could be wrong.

The only reason the Tanker ships aren't S class cargo (they're meant to be "oilers" that carry Energy Cells) is because the Jumpdrive is M-class cargo.

[Lancefighter]

octopus raiders, and for that matter all m5 -raiders have triplex scanner built in.
edit
a few other comments - giving increaseing jumpdrive cargo size and then giving m3s jumpdrives is backwards. if you dont want fighters to have jumpdrives, then why are you giving it to them?

I suggested that tankers get 's' cargo and a built in jumpdrive, but it was decided that would be too useful if you cant acquire jumpdrives normally because of rep restrictions..

and I agree, a scout ship should totally have a different scanner range than the battleship. Ideally, a triplex scanner might be ST(or bigger!..built in..) such that ONLY scout ships can carry them. Because it makes perfect sense that recon ships are pretty useless (IS, at least. Slightly useful for extended range recon, but who really needs to scout 2-3 jumps in advance?)

[vkerinav]

a few other comments - giving increaseing jumpdrive cargo size and then giving m3s jumpdrives is backwards. if you dont want fighters to have jumpdrives, then why are you giving it to them?

It would be silly giving them to every M3, yes. I suggest giving them only to the rare ones; else the Falcon Hauler will be the only M3 with jump capability, and that would be odd.

That brings up the TP, as well; only the Angel is capable of XL cargo. What to do about that(if anything)?

The Tanker-variant freighters, as dedicated fleet-tenders, could have their reputation requirement bumped up, and jumpdrives built in.

and I agree, a scout ship should totally have a different scanner range than the battleship. Ideally, a triplex scanner might be ST(or bigger!..built in..) such that ONLY scout ships can carry them. Because it makes perfect sense that recon ships are pretty useless (IS, at least. Slightly useful for extended range recon, but who really needs to scout 2-3 jumps in advance?)

Now that you mention it, every M1 and M2 has triplex built in as well(except the Woden, but that's a quick fix). I agree with ST size. Downgrade the M5 raiders to Duplex, and add them to the Rapier, Valkyrie, N, and Fuijin Raider, and raise its ware size to XL. Once again giving greater purpose to TMs.

Just don't let me suggest removing triplex scanners from M2s.

[paulwheeler]

This is all great stuff guys! Nice to see a discussion going on about the changes.

My feelings were that no fighters should be able to mount jump drives, hense the changes to XL for the ware size. I doubt trying to include wares as built in on ships that don't have the ware size compatiblity will work.

I can easily change a ship's ware size compatiblity though. However, I intended the jumpdrive changes to be an optional addon as I know some people may not like this change. If its optional then changing cargo compatiblity changes the playing field for those not using the jumpdrive addon pack.

Regarding TPs, I think as passenger transports they should be able to mount jumpdrives, so why not put them all to XL? Perhaps I could reduce their cargo bays too to compensate.

We also have to be careful that we do not go too far with changing other aspects of the game. This is a ship rebalance mod and not a game rebalance.

I agree to an extent about scanners. At the moment there is really no point to the duplex scanner at all as everyone instantly puts a triplex in their ship.

Perhaps a better way is to severly ramp up the price of the triplex. If it cost, say 20,000,000 to buy people may think twice before putting one in a scout with only 1MJ shields! Or if it is a recon scout people will have to make damn sure they stay out of trouble. Also if we upped the price we could extend the ranges too a bit.

I disagree that the price is not a good rebalancing mechanism. We just need to push things a little. In the current game its too cheap to just max everything out. I'd like to make engine tunings and rudder tunings more expensive too.

Perhaps the new addon pack could change the jumpdrive to XL and increase the prices of the scanners, jumpdrive and engine tunings. Changing scanner ranges is simple too.

On that note - why is the comm range so short? We can send transmissions further than that with current technology. In my game I've upped the comm range. I could add that into the pack too if people wish.


--------

Regarding the next update - I'm getting there on engine emitter placements. I've finished Teladi ships, but I want to get split ships done too for this release.

I have tweaked the particle trails a bit. With the huge plume that Teladi ships currently create, it looked a bit strange now that all Teladi ships now have mulitple trails. So I've narrowed the trail a bit. I've also made the split trail a bit more intense. I will also update the cockpit mod for this release too.

I will hopefully have it done by the end of the week.

[OOZ662]

If you're working on trail emitters and whatnot, I've always been irritated by the Deca ships only having one emitter on the top-left engine when they have four engines. I reported it to killer, but I suppose he forgot.

[paulwheeler]

OK I'll sort the deca ship trails for this release too.

I must say things look much better when the ships have multiple trails. The Falcons look great with their four centrally placed engines.