My only real concern with this so far is that the speed boost values from engines seem kinda low. Even on a BX-9, which receives 112.5 px/s from the 25% boost, the current bonus from a maxed out legendary hall-effect is higher by a decent amount than the 70 px/s that it will apply now.
Hmm… I’ll double-check. Where does the 25% come from? I only see a max +15% (+67.5) from fuel efficiency.
Indeed the boost was 25%. Something has gone wrong in my numbers since v.100. I’ll fix it.
5 Likes
Just out of curiosity because I remember it differently during first EA versions. How many people exactly complained about it?
Ok, so I’ve corrected things and simplified them as well. The four engines now give +30 each (starting at 0). Each rarity gives +20, each upgrade level gives +15
So maximum boost is 90 + 3 * 20 + 3 * 15 = 195
Don’t really remember – it might be worth revisiting via a poll.
I’m under the impression that unlimited speed is a core gameplay feature that people have got accustomed to over the years, so they’d be reluctant to see it go.
If unlimited speed is removed, then max speed will become a ‘selling point’ of each spacecraft, so it would make sense to have a new spacecraft family (perhaps even the Raven?) that vastly outperforms the others (at some cost).
8 Likes
I’m all for it, but you do it and in different topic. There’s more votes this way. + maybe block lvl 0 users.
CIU is a spin-off. Why are you so afraid to test never before seen features? It’s also still in EA.
1 Like
As I mentioned on discord, i was only able to find one post complaining about it on the forum: RECRUIT 35 LOG #1 (Episode Universe's Biggest Control Flaw... for the moment)
Well, this particular change has been “tested” in the past, so it’s a special case. In any case, an up-to-date poll can’t harm.
7 Likes
I’ll stop again with the spacecraft changes for now because v.101 already has an extensively reworked weapon system that will probably cause some pain, plus there’s a relatively urgent “being kicked out of League” bug that I want to address ASAP.
New version coming tomorrow morning.
12 Likes
I just realized the speeds for H&C and Mullers were interchanged in my original post About the current state of spacecraft in the game - #108 by InterAction_studios . I have corrected them now.
This is a first approximation, and these numbers will of course be revised – especially if unlimited fighter speed is removed.
8 Likes
Added to v.102 
Idea
15 Likes
Overdrive is good as it is on automatic weapons, no need to change, just add more alternatives with the booster slot like IA said
After nerfing manuvering jets by half, they should be also cheaper, now they are too overpriced
2 Likes
I think an underlying issue is that later models (in the same family) aren’t necessarily better than earlier models. Part of of the problem stems from the fact that I tried to make later models slower and bigger, which was in retrospect a counter-productive approach (although it arguably makes some in-universe sense).
I’m therefore going to make a series of changes with the following goals:
- Later models in a given family are always:
- faster(*)
- have smaller collision circles(*)
- have more satellite and/or hardpoint slots
- are more expensive
(*) the Bomber class is an exception, because it follows the “slower and bigger, but more firepower” principle
-
I want the H&C family to be the “starter” family, which means I will only be adding special features to it which are helpful to newcomers (example: yes to better key yield, but no to environmental resistance, because environments are a gated game feature that can’t be accessed by new players)
-
I also don’t want any particular family to be unequivocally “better” than the others under all circumstances. To that end, I will make all their costs approximately equal (exception: H&C will still be cheaper)
-
I think the “Extra Slot” somewhat dilutes the value of each spacecraft’s built-in slots, so I’m going to double its cost.
13 Likes
Can we get guaranteed bonus keys for completing competitive missions rather than just top 10 to make it a bit easier to go to competitive late game?
Instead of that, we should just hard cap the maximum mission slots each spacecraft gets. That way you can’t just buy enough slots to cancel the original slot advantage that the spacecraft family has over others.
2 Likes
So if I understand correctly, with exception of bombers, other spacecraft families will just follow cheaper worser, expensiver betterer .
It does make sense on paper but I would be cautious about doing what you just described sir. I am very afraid that what this will do, will just in practice remove cheaper models from the game, the same problem that is attached to equipment such as engines and reactors.
I don’t have access to data on this sorta stuff, but I and many of people I know, tend to just skip over the average and weak equipment, and grind straight to the best model. Nobody is asking where is legendary ion thruster. Everyone cares about hall effect and its rarities. So I am not sure this change is the direction to go, unless this is exactly what you want to achieve with the ships. But I think the other approach (what bombers do) might be better in general.
Originally when bombers came out I hated them quite a lot. For multiple reasons, more and less valid. But nowadays, especially after we got down to 3 of them, I feel like it’s BY FAR the best designed spacecraft family in the game. Because unlike other families there really is a real choice between Bx7, Bx8 and Bx9. Depending on what player needs/wants, they can go one or another. I think that having a dynamic like this between members of other families aswell can be a huge improvement, and I believe there is plenty of room to achieve this kinda dynamic. (Especially if it’s decided that all ships have limited speed again)
We have speed, hitbox size and satellite quantity & placement.
One example from top of my head for HnC and Muller families:
- HnC 1: small but slow, 2 satellites
- HnC 2: big but fast, 2 satellites
- HnC 3: small and fast, 0 satellites
- Muller 1: small but slow, 3/4 satellites
- Muller 2: big but fast , 3/4 satellites
- Muller 3: big and slow, 6 satellites
(And ofc have Mullers in general be a bit different in base stats of bigness and fastness than HnC, and if like R75 said we remove extra slots altogether we might have even more variables to play with)
I think what I just described has something for everyone. Satellite enthusiast or unpreparednes freak. Idk I think this kinda thing just sounds more compelling for a player like me than just having more expensive variants be better and that’s it.
10 Likes
I think extra slots could be limited to a maximum of +50% (BX-9 has 20 slots, and this’d align with the current maximum of 30) if we want to apply a cap for each ship. There would be a small issue with the BX-8 which has an odd number of slots, which would have to be rounded to match either the BX-7 or 9.
Either that, or the maximum number of extra slots you can own could just be reduced from 24 to 10.
5 Likes
One question, what is the decided special ability of the new space superiority family?
Hmm… Point taken.
Well, back to the drawing board it is, then 
I think I’ll close the “unlimited speed” poll early, because it will determine how important of a criterion speed will be when balancing.
10 Likes
Technically, isn’t the H&C class also a sort of exception? If I recall correctly (see: dubious), the better key yield is strongest with the cheapest model of H&C.
I’m sort of kind of on board with this approach, tbh. I know a few people have complained about it above, but I think a full slot loadout is a rewarding goal for experienced players to be able to unlock, and encourages more spending on mountable items, too.
That said, I think the best way to balance this with spaceships is to make sure that whatever the Extra Slot cost is costs more that getting the equivalent number of slots from a spaceship upgrade. Slots ought to be primarily endgame upgrades, at least if you’ve got any economic sense to realise that. Newer players should be focusing on upgrading by getting a cool ship, not by loading up on extra slots (unless they really need just one more…)
It should never be cheaper to buy extra slots than it is to get them through a spaceship upgrade - however expensive it needs to be to accomplish this is fine with me.
I play somewhat less often than a lot of you guys and that’s also always been my approach. I’m sure iA has the actual sales data available to support/debunk this theory though.
Keep in mind that at least one spaceship is also CHL limited. So you’ve got “cheap, good, premium only” rather than just “cheap, less cheap, good”. The dynamic isn’t quite the same as it is for equipment. Spaceships also cost way more than engines and things so I’m sure there’s some less patient subset of the playerbase who really want an X family spaceship and will buy the first one they can afford.
Ideally, I’d definitely like every single spacecraft nuanced and balanced. But at the same time, I’d be happy to sacrifice that (especially temporarily) if it meant we could focus on making each family distinct, fun, and viable, which would be step 1 on the journey to spaceship perfection and seems to be the priority at the moment.
glowing H&C time let’s go, take my keys
10 Likes