There is no such thing as obvious with ideas. =)

Anyway, stacking very specific mods would defeat the purpose because you could easily get every combination of stats and "pick" only the weaknesses that you don't care about anyway.
That's the same as not having specialisation at all and only putting stuff in until you have everything.
Also, it devalues content. Once you have found the +130% damage mod, your old +115% damage mod has become completely pointless. Basic vertical scaling. Do not want.

I'd rather have mods that change 3-5 stats at once but you can only install one such mod total. That way you have to explore the universe and find new and interesting "class mods" or whatever you want to call them.
Your "old" mods don't automatically become outdated, either. They are simply different and may still find a use for another purpose or against the ships of a particular faction.
This is more complex but ultimately easier to balance because you don't end up with a faction that "rolls low" for their mods and is therefore inferior no matter what they do.

Two things;

1) I wouldn't mind stacking modules, as long as there is definitely more penalties. I want to have a corvette that excels in covering against fighters. I'll take a damage reduction in my flak cannons if I can have more of them or if they fire much more rapidly than with one module. Yeah, it may not do much damage, but if the flak shakes the ships a little, or causes more of a smokescreen effect, it would be more of a deterrent than anything else. Not to mention a comical video on youtube of "LOLOMG 1,200 BLINDING ENEMIES" would be hilarious if not just impractical.

That and having a super fast scout ship would be cool too. Wouldn't have much shields and barely any guns, but it could easily make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs.

2) Gazz, you mentioned a module modifying 3-5 attributes... At this point, we might as well have some sort of procedural generation on the modules then (within some bounds) and you could find yourself some very interesting mods. It may be hell to balance, but that would *really* make the ships interesting to build for yourself.

DWMagus wrote:2) Gazz, you mentioned a module modifying 3-5 attributes... At this point, we might as well have some sort of procedural generation on the modules then (within some bounds) and you could find yourself some very interesting mods. It may be hell to balance, but that would *really* make the ships interesting to build for yourself.

I thought about that but I don't think that full PG is the way.
There will be some involved, no doubt, but I'd rather hand-craft the modules to some degree, making sure that there are at least some negatives that fit the flavour of the design.
Random ones can always be added.

For instance, something like a missile frigate could have one of it's negatives always selected from those two:
- minus shield regen
- minus total shield strength

A less-than-ideally shielded bombardment unit although the mechanics and magnitude would still differ.

This way the player can't luck out and get a module that has no negatives that matter in any way.
I don't trust in monkeys with typewriters. =)

You know, at this point since Josh has pretty much put his weight behind your ideas Gazz, this probably could be split into another thread detailing the modules and ideas surrounding generation, combination, and the listing of possible modules to be used.

I know (and you know how much I like the sound of my own voice) but that would mean I'd have to stop being lazy.
Besides, some good points have been made or have pointed out aspects I hadn't considered. =)

For PG mods, you could set up a framework for them. Maybe something like:

Each mod must have one less negative attribute than positive ones. So you could get mods with just a single positive (and not negatives), but if it had 3 positive benefits, you'd have to have two negatives. Also all mods have a power requirement, so you have to have a big enough power plant. Make it so they can't be moved between ships once installed and now you have to be REALLY careful that you make your ships power plant large enough for future mods, and that you don't use up the good ones on a ship you might want to retire.

(and just to be snarky follow the MMO standard, single positive mods are white, green ones have two positives and a neg, blue are 3 and 2, purple are 4 and 3, and Orange are 5 and 4 and something unique/special like periodic proc effects).

Then couple that with making sure to correlate a related negative TYPE with the positive TYPE, you then ensure proper tradeoffs.

For example, let's say I found a mod (blue) with the following:

-10% Missile Reload Time (pos) [first bonus has no correlated negative]
+10% energy weapon damage (pos)
+10% shield recharge rate (pos)
-15% energy weapon range (neg) [weapon-related negative]
+30% shield power requirements (neg) [shield-related negative]
POWER USE: 1.21 Gigawatts

That would saving having to invent some internal point-based balance mechanism. Instead each positive has to have an associated negative chosen from a limited related set.

I love the idea of mods being able to more-specialize my ship design because it also allows for the base ship design to be kept relatively simple.

Nerfherder wrote:Each mod must have one less negative attribute than positive ones. So you could get mods with just a single positive (and not negatives), but if it had 3 positive benefits, you'd have to have two negatives. Also all mods have a power requirement, so you have to have a big enough power plant. Make it so they can't be moved between ships once installed and now you have to be REALLY careful that you make your ships power plant large enough for future mods, and that you don't use up the good ones on a ship you might want to retire.

I like.
This neatly solves the issue of an uneven distribution of positives and negatives creating excessively strong/weak bonuses if the total power is simply equalised.

The moment I read this i started thinking that the module is the ship AI. Some ships AI is specialized in ballistic calculations thus increasing mass based weaponry, some ships have AI that can monitor the engine more accurately allowing it to run closer to theoretical maximum etc.

Nerfherder wrote:For example, let's say I found a mod (blue) with the following:

-10% Missile Reload Time (pos) [first bonus has no correlated negative]
+10% energy weapon damage (pos)
+10% shield recharge rate (pos)
-15% energy weapon range (neg) [weapon-related negative]
+30% shield power requirements (neg) [shield-related negative]
POWER USE: 1.21 Gigawatts

That would saving having to invent some internal point-based balance mechanism. Instead each positive has to have an associated negative chosen from a limited related set.

I love the idea of mods being able to more-specialize my ship design because it also allows for the base ship design to be kept relatively simple.

The problem I have with this method is you may never be able to find a module that gives you the exact effect you desire, you may spend a lot of time exploring trying to find that perfect one but never actually get it. If you allow people to pick and choose a couple modules to combine them (each with a positive and negative of their own) they would be able to specialize for their needs in a much more significant way.

As it is you would have to build your ship around the module (using missiles and energy weapons while likely disregarding explosive projectiles and mass drivers completely). If it was implemented the way I suggested you would be able to tailor the modules to your ship instead.

I guess I see the modules as more of a "gravy" addon as a way to tweak a specialty, as opposed to a must-have. By having them PG as combat drops, or as results of your factories crafting them, you introduce a little variety into the game. Done correcty with the correct offsets. And nobody says you HAVE to use them.

Nerfherder wrote:I guess I see the modules as more of a "gravy" addon as a way to tweak a specialty, as opposed to a must-have. By having them PG as combat drops, or as results of your factories crafting them, you introduce a little variety into the game. Done correcty with the correct offsets. And nobody says you HAVE to use them.

I see it as a bonus as well, if nothing more than specialization. Just because you don't find that 'perfect' module doesn't mean your ship is worthless. It means that you may not have a slight edge over your opponent. Hell, even if the enemy destroyer had a simple +10% range module, they may still win regardless of yours just because they happen to get in one extra salvo of weapon fire by the time your batteries start charging.

But yeah, I like the idea of some positive and negative effects on the modules. Although, I would take it just a hair further. 1-to-1 ratio of positive to negative effects. 2 pros + 2 cons. This feels a little bit more balanced IMO and would allow for stacking modules to be more accessible.

Nerfherder wrote:For PG mods, you could set up a framework for them. Maybe something like:

Each mod must have one less negative attribute than positive ones. So you could get mods with just a single positive (and not negatives), but if it had 3 positive benefits, you'd have to have two negatives. Also all mods have a power requirement, so you have to have a big enough power plant. Make it so they can't be moved between ships once installed and now you have to be REALLY careful that you make your ships power plant large enough for future mods, and that you don't use up the good ones on a ship you might want to retire.

(and just to be snarky follow the MMO standard, single positive mods are white, green ones have two positives and a neg, blue are 3 and 2, purple are 4 and 3, and Orange are 5 and 4 and something unique/special like periodic proc effects).

Then couple that with making sure to correlate a related negative TYPE with the positive TYPE, you then ensure proper tradeoffs.

For example, let's say I found a mod (blue) with the following:

-10% Missile Reload Time (pos) [first bonus has no correlated negative]
+10% energy weapon damage (pos)
+10% shield recharge rate (pos)
-15% energy weapon range (neg) [weapon-related negative]
+30% shield power requirements (neg) [shield-related negative]
POWER USE: 1.21 Gigawatts

That would saving having to invent some internal point-based balance mechanism. Instead each positive has to have an associated negative chosen from a limited related set.

I love the idea of mods being able to more-specialize my ship design because it also allows for the base ship design to be kept relatively simple.

I like this idea, but I see one problem, unless it is balanced, you will get some major conflict-ions. Obviously, with Josh coding this there won't be any problems with it, but for fun, the rare bugs with this I imagine someone would find:
+ 20% shield effectiveness against fighters
-30 percent weapon strength against corvettes
+ 5% chance of overheat
+ 5000% more loot
- 20 percent effectiveness against fighters
+ Factions will trust you more
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect
ect(x20)

In all honesty though I don't like the idea of core modules giving benefits. I would rather it all be one's skill and use of ship's advantages. It also feels too much like minecraft's enchantment system, where you put a weapon on a table, gave a lot of experience hoping for the best, often getting useless ones and nothing you liked/needed (i.e infinity.) If I were to use core modules, they would be like the ship's actual software, individual for each ship type, each ship type would have it's own benefit, and from the core modules, at a station, the ship could be upgraded. I think they should come "pre-installed with your ship" so you can't have an unclassified ship or super-large "fighter."

I like the idea of modules defining the role of the ship. If these modules are PG, then I would appreciate a way to combine/research modules.
Perhaps a module with +20% flak range / -10% speed, and a module with +10% speed / -2% energy generation could combine into +20%flak range / -2% energy generation?
The resulting module could then be reverse engineered and mass produced?

Okay, I'll confess I only skim read through this thread, but another alternative re: balancing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is to assign values to general stats. Each module has a max amount of points (lets say 100 base for this example). There may be "rare / legendary" type stuff (under the name tech level).

So:

Tech 1: 100 points
Tech 2: 110
Tech 3: 120... etc

Then each affect has a numeral value, moreover, there are classifications of mods, to prevent the occurance of say, - 87.5% Coffeepots (okay, replace that with any trade stat) + 225% Laser Damage Mods from ever appearing. Instead it could only come out as something like -87.5% Shield Integrity + 115% Laser Damage, which is more balanced. Some vessels, such as transporters wouldn't have access to military mods, because the reverse of the aforementioned mod would be entirely overpowered (tons of shields and no damage).

So as an example...

Military Module:

+ / - 2.5% Shield Regen = 12.5 points
+ / - 2.5% Shield Capacity = 10 points
+ / - 5% Sublight Engine Efficiency = 10 points
etc...

CCC Module

+ / - 1.5% Fleet targetting accuracy (better leading) = 10 points
+ / - 2% Navigation Speed = 10 points
etc...

Auxiliary Module

/ - 7.5% Chance of fire on Hull Damage = - 12 points
/ - 7.5% Chance engine flameout when taking subsystem damage = - 17.5 points
+ / - 3.3% Capacitor Capacity = 10 points
etc.

However it would prevent different weapon groups being affected by the same mod! So you can't end up with:

- 12.5% Laser Damage ( - 50 points of the 100 base, giving 150 to be "spend" by procedure)
+ 37.5 Projectile Damage%



If anyone is interested in this idea, I'd be happy to flesh out this concept more. Personally I think it would be fun when coupled with "trait" effects as well.

Traits E.G.

Military:
+ ?? % chance of overloading a subsystem upon hitting enemy. + 50
+ ?? % chance of disabling a struck enemy's targetting mainframe. + 30
+ 5% chance of overloading your weapon (causing temporary offline state) - 20

Auxilary:

+ ?? Chance of shield frequency failure (causing shields to fail to repel a random weapon type for a period of time). - 25


Just my two cents, curious what you guys think. P.S. All values assigned are completely arbitrary and I haven't made any real attempt to balance them at this point. All this is built around capital ship balancing, but can easily be expanded into other classifications as well.

P.P.S. Yea I like colours


@ Katorone: I like the idea of modules determining a ships specialty, though I think the chassis and tonnage should influence it considerably as well

Edit: Clarifying a couple things that were ambiguous.

Ohh, shiny!
(still some lost BB tags, though =)


There's the trouble of exponential complexity when dealing with a huge number of multi-stat "buff" modules.
The system is clearly designed for min-maxers who would tinker with modules for 3 hours just to get a fighter design "right".

Also, when using several separate stat modules in a ship, it's too easy to end up with an "always best" module,

My approach to that was using a single "specialisation" module per ship.
The stat types for any such module would probably be hand-picked or generated from a "drop table" or "stat tree" so that certain overpowered combinations could be avoided.
With this system the player could still find "new modules" but each one would shift the designed ship towards a certain purpose.
The complexity of designing a ship would remain constant because it's always one choice.
Depth would arguably be greater because you would have to make a choice instead of building every ship of every size with the exact same stat modules.
There would be a far greater number of distinctly different designs instead of everyone gunning for the 2 key stats that always win.