Blocks' Basic Stats Need a Revision.

[xisec]

After a look to the blocks' basic stats (durability, density, energy consumption, and so on), I would say that it is time to a revision and a rebalance. Some are old issues, and others may be result of the recent game changes, that have hadn't time to be revised yet.

 

 

I will use this data to compare the numbers:

 

Abstract Block values compared with the abstract hull values as reference:

 

 

 

 

 

And a long table with particular values compared with the Trinium Hull Block values as reference, here are some screenshots:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Durability/Density Issue.

 

Under my point of view, armor and chassis blocks should be the most efficient block in terms of durability/density.

 

Why? Well, these are the main functional stats of chassis. If other block types, like solar pannels, have better stats, players may use it instead of chassis (armor and hull) blocks; and I don't know about you, but I would not like to see that situation into the game. I would like to armor to be used as armor (compact and efficient barrier), and hull to be used as hull (efficient filling material).

 

Maybe in real world other blocks should have better dur/den than a tipical armor material, like the recorder block, for example, but I would not like to see a ship using recorder blocks as armor in the game :/. Price is also a variable to have into account, but players will not care to pay in order to have the best material performance.

 

If we see the numbers, we find some odd data, like that solar pannels have the top values:

 

 

 

As we see, armor and chassis are far away from the top:

 

 

 

Game balance importance: 2/10

Game aesthetics importance: 8.5/10

Fixation difficulty forecast: 2/10

 

 

2. Energy Consumptions.

While some blocks, like chassis, have an energy consumption, other ones, like hangars, lights or holos consume 0 energy. Assembly blocks aso do not consume energy!

 

Game balance importance: 3/10

Game aesthetics importance: 5/10

Fixation difficulty forecast: 1/10

 

 

3. Other individual balances:

 

-Right now, thrusters, for example, have a ridiculous durability (12,5% compared with an abstract hull), having into account that sometimes they need to be placed in the edge of  the ships, and thus, sometimes exposed; with not doubt, more exposed than engines. I think that their Dur should be increased at least to 50%.

 

Game balance importance: 5/10

Game aesthetics importance: 1/10

Fixation difficulty forecast: 1/10

 

-Any other desired changes.

 

---

 

 

Thx for reading, see u guys o7

 

 

 

 

 

[xisec]

-- Sorry I quoted the entire post by error here

[Kamo]

Yup, thrusters are effectively a bit fragile. On my Taki-class cruiser, even as they are entirely protected by armor, they often explode on moderate combat scenarios - and the whole thing is integrity fielded too.

Kinda nice that solar panels have a very good durability per density, it feels like solar sails would have been a thing Koon would have wanted on our ship designs :D.

 

My opinion on block balance:

• Solar Panels are underpowered... notably, every Solar Panel that isn't Iron. Energy made by them doesn't scale by material ! So, apart from sails, decoration and other exposed solar panels (and who'd want to expose their energy generation), non-iron solar panels are kind of useless.
  
• Almost the same for Integrity Fields. Integrity multiplier is the same for all and energy drain from integrity fields is comparatively tiny, so non-titanium integrity fields are also kind of useless. Maybe the multiplier could be nerfed from 10 to 4 + material number ?
  
• The same effect occurs with Engines and Thrusters, but it's ok - Titanium and Trinium are supposed to be premium engine materials. Maybe making Naonite, Xanion and Avorion engines special (acceleration/velocity ratio would be a way to tweak balance) would be nice ?
  
• Hull is useless. Armor is better in all ways. Armor needs way less volume for the same health, way less mass for the same health (so it's actually lighter than hull, 2,25 times so if I read your tables correctly), and Hull needs way more engineers than Armor mechanics. I'd swap Armor and Hull crew requirements: Armor is supposed to be more difficult to repair than Hull, to encourage people to use Hull over otherwise superior Armor...
  
• Omnithrusters are a little too nerfed compared to current directional thrusters.
  
• Directional thrusters are a little too weak compared to engines (even a small ship has difficulty strafing with a lot of thrusters, but even a large ship has no difficulty accelerating with minimal engines, let alone attain the usual 400-500 m/s velocity - in fact, I remark that bigger ships go faster  and get more agile).
  
• More Inertial Dampener materials may be needed.
  
• Iron/Titanium Hangars have to be unblocked, to use those lil' Iron/Titanium fighters.
  
• Framework health is way too small. Maybe making it 15% of normal hull health for 10% density (making it mini-armor in a durability per density comparison) ?
  
• Turret Rotation Lock health is way too small. Maybe making it 300% of armor health and density for 1000% cost would fix the problem of a block that's supposed to be tailor-made to resist duress.
  
• Same thing with Dock health, albeit Docks should still be kinda easier to destroy. Maybe the same changes as Turret Rotation Locks but indexed upon hull instead of armor strength.
  
• Crew Quarters health is too small. Putting nice windows on a ship is perilous. 50% hull strength could be good.
  
• Hangar health is too small. 50% to 100% hull strength could be good.
  
• Stone and Rich Stone health are too small. 65%/75% armor strength would be nice (or, alternatively, no changes if armor is nerfed as previouly suggested).
  
• Energy Containers are way too inefficient. Koon basically stated that ships should not be able to do consecutive hyperspace jumps (without a huge energy excess), hence the need for Energy Containers, but almost nobody uses Energy Containers as they contain way too little energy per volume.
  
• More block variety or variants, in general, may be better (better but more costly thrusters ? slower/faster accelerating but faster/slower velocity engines ?).
  
• Trinium is overpowered, as inverse density is a god stat for any material because health and energy are just linearily reliant on material number. For the same reason, poor Ogonite is underpowered because its supposed strength, health, is just par for its material number.
  
• Avorion as a material has to be upgraded (maybe making it 3 tiers above Ogonite on energy and efficiency-related things would make it a correct gamebreaker, as it is supposed to be). It's Avorion 8), not simply material number seven.
  
• Secondarily, materials need to be rebalanced, to make using earlier materials on late game plausible. The "lower on the list is better" seems to be kinda cool for arcadey and pretty simple gameplay, but maybe other things would be great.
  • Oh, an idea. Parametrable custom values for materials, like custom rulesets, for each galaxy, to suit playstyles and exert creativity.