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.
11 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.
6 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
11 Likes
I think there is no need to nerf max slots, it’s just good as it is, you gotta buy them for 400+ keys anyway
Hard disagree here, if you can simply buy mission slots with the current system, the original mission slot advantage that Mullers have over H&C is eliminated, and H&C’s already have the advantages of a smaller hitbox and key bonus.
1 Like
What’s wrong with that? You are paying for this
1 Like
Can there be something like, “Faster and smaller, but less firepower”?
Idea: If we really want the more expensive models within a family to just be “better” than the others, perhaps another way of keeping the cheaper ones relevant would be to lock certain better models behind a hard tier restriction (“You need to reach tier __ to purchase a ____”). Would make tiers feel more meaningful.
Not unless we limit fighter speed again, which the community seems to be softly against. Can’t be faster than infinity, can you?
6 Likes
I actually assumed the limited speed option to win, so I said that.
But at least, we can say faster for environments with gravity, such as suns or wormholes etc.
1 Like
Tier restriction sounds good
Ok, I’ve made some changes to ensure that later models in a given family are always:
- slower
- have larger collision circles
- have more satellite and/or hardpoint slots
- are more expensive
Generally speaking, I want successive models in a given family to improve on whatever the special ability is (at a proportionately increased cost). So, for example, later bombers are more powerful, but slower (because that is that their fundamental trade-off).
I’ve also made a first approximation to the Superiority (“Raven”) spacecraft, with the following characteristics:
- Very fast (since fighter speed is currently unlimited, this advantage is sadly only relevant during massive missions)
- Weapon is power-limited
- Ample satellite slots (to partly make up for the power limitation)
- Partial nullification of darkness and massive (in the sense that it’s still way faster than anything else), and full nullification of hot, frozen, and electric environments (depending on model).
So, in that sense, I guess it comes closer to the “environmental resistance” previously discussed. Still, this is only a placeholder special ability and might be changed/removed in future updates.
25 Likes
What about dual weapons? Wasn’t that the most iconic feature?
As “iconic” as that might have been, implementing that feature would take a lot longer, and there’s no time for it right now. I want to get an update out tomorrow and then work on ironing out the kinks until the end of next week. Around that time, development will be sadly need to be suspended for several weeks, and I don’t want to have big half-baked changes in progress.
8 Likes
Dual weapons voting was kind of rigged by someone using new accounts. Right now the votes between dual weapons and charge are equal, so charge technically won.