"Power creep" with new Split ships

[Dinadin]

https://i.imgur.com/TAgSpRk.png

I got this screenshot from a new XLOG video. We can see that a new Split corvette(or Frigate) is going to have 6 weapons.

In online games this is called "Power creep" - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... er%20Creep

But this is not online game, we already have OP Paranid ships, with Nemesis being more powerful then Argon and Teladi Destroyers.
It's ok to implement new powerful entities in the game if old entities are also improved, but who will fly or command teladi or human ships in combat if you have paranid(and in the future) split ships?


{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}

[Buzz2005]

you are forgetting that all the ships we saw had 1 shield, in AI hands not that powerful

in player hands its going to be a substitute for the nemesis

[radcapricorn]

I absolutely agree. The X4 ship "system" pretty much kills choice. I guess one could still fly one-gun S ships or two-gun M ships for roleplaying purposes, but aside from that - what's the point? Starter ship, then straight to Nemesis, you're done. While the game touts this ability to "fly (almost) every ship", it does nothing to convince us to actually do so. Sad ©

[DavidGW]

I believe Split ships are intended to be 'glass cannons', so this ship is likely to either only have a single shield generator, or have low hull HP.

The extra gun is nice, and makes it a likely candidate for favourite player ship. However considering it could be a snail, made of tissue paper, sluggish to steer and/or have low cargo capacity, calling 'power creep' right now is too speculative.

Wait for the next DLC, if it happens to be Terrans. At least lore-wise, I think they should bring some solid power creep. But again, that can still be offset through other downsides, like cost, difficulty of purchase due to low faction rep, etc.

[DavidGW]

I absolutely agree. The X4 ship "system" pretty much kills choice. I guess one could still fly one-gun S ships or two-gun M ships for roleplaying purposes, but aside from that - what's the point? Starter ship, then straight to Nemesis, you're done. While the game touts this ability to "fly (almost) every ship", it does nothing to convince us to actually do so. Sad ©

In general I agree, some rebalancing probably couldn't hurt. Once you can buy a Nemesis, you have little reason to fly anything else.

However, that is pretty realistic. Once a person can afford to buy a luxury car, they have very little reason to drive anything else. I doubt many people who drive a Mercedes S-Class or Porche also drive a semi-trailer or a courier van during work hours. They pay someone else to do it.

[radcapricorn]

Heh, if only Lamborghinis were a dime a dozen

I don't think rebalancing would help, it can at best only create a different "winner" ship. The core mechanics are at fault here: no power distribution and management, insignificant role of cargo bay (why combat ships even have it, I don't know, it's useless on them), no interaction between subsystems. Most "choices" of equipment are obvious, which only undermines their existence.

[GCU Grey Area]

who will fly or command teladi or human ships in combat if you have paranid(and in the future) split ships?

I will - they make some of my favourite ships. In X games I like to try out ALL the options. Indeed, have been steadily working my way through them - first X4 game I was using Paranid & Argon vessels, second was exclusively Teladi (became very fond of their capitals), current game is mostly Argon.

At the moment having a great deal of fun with a Minotaur Raider. Tried a Cerberus first but, within a few minutes, had concluded I really didn't like the restricted view from the cockpit & out of the 3 Minotaurs the Raider was the fastest & most manoeuverable (by quite a significant margin). Slightly fewer guns than it's counterparts, but still sufficient armaments for my purposes & IMO worth the trade off.

No doubt will try out the new ships when the Split DLC comes out. However that certainly doesn't mean I'll only fly Split ships from that point on.

[chew-ie]

I absolutely agree. The X4 ship "system" pretty much kills choice. I guess one could still fly one-gun S ships or two-gun M ships for roleplaying purposes, but aside from that - what's the point? Starter ship, then straight to Nemesis, you're done. While the game touts this ability to "fly (almost) every ship", it does nothing to convince us to actually do so. Sad ©

In general I agree, some rebalancing probably couldn't hurt. Once you can buy a Nemesis, you have little reason to fly anything else.

However, that is pretty realistic. Once a person can afford to buy a luxury car, they have very little reason to drive anything else. I doubt many people who drive a Mercedes S-Class or Porche also drive a semi-trailer or a courier van during work hours. They pay someone else to do it.

Problem with that analogy is that the nemesis is the cheapest Mercedes you ever saw in a X game. Then again it fits the style of this ship - totally broken design from all angles. Be it balance, looks, price, ... totally broken and unworthy even for a X game. Heck - they used to geht things like that right in the past. Even the Springblossom got disadvantages while being totally OP (late game access, awful flight behaviour).

Seriously, Nemesis needs to change. The OP is right, the split ship will cover this slot while being balanced (1 shield only) - most fragile M gunship / corvette.

[..] The core mechanics are at fault here: no power distribution and management, insignificant role of cargo bay (why combat ships even have it, I don't know, it's useless on them), no interaction between subsystems. Most "choices" of equipment are obvious, which only undermines their existence.

Pretty much. We got more details all over the place, but ship systems got dumped down. "Reactors? Who needs reactors. We run on good faith".

[DavidGW]

Problem with that analogy is that the nemesis is the cheapest Mercedes you ever saw in a X game. Then again it fits the style of this ship - totally broken design from all angles. Be it balance, looks, price, ... totally broken and unworthy even for a X game. Heck - they used to geht things like that right in the past. Even the Springblossom got disadvantages while being totally OP (late game access, awful flight behaviour).

Seriously, Nemesis needs to change. The OP is right, the split ship will cover this slot while being balanced (1 shield only) - most fragile M gunship / corvette.

Fair enough, my point is that it could be rebalanced by just making it more expensive. It does have drawbacks compared to other ships in its class, like only two shields, low cargo and only two turrets. I don't think the Nemesis specifically needs a redesign, just be 50+% more expensive. Combat rebalancing could be fixed with a general rebalance of weapons and turret buff.

[Axeface]

I dont think its a problem that certain ships are better than others unless its causing problems in the simulation (dominance of a certain faction, although one faction has to be the best, right, might aswel be the genetically superior one) as this is a single player game, I do think changes need to be made to make it make sense for the player. For example I personally think that Paranid ships should far more expensive than the other races ships, and require much more reputation to buy - the Paranid are a paranoid, xenophobic and proud culture, they should not be just as accepting to others using their tech as the Teladi - the Teladi themselves I think should have much, much lower reputation requirements to buy even Carriers, and their ships should generally be the cheapest (that doesnt mean bad, they should be robust and with great cargo capacity imo). Paranid ships could have aesthetic advantages too over Teladi for example, their ships could sound divine and be much more responsive than more solid Teladi ships (soild doesnt mean 'feel bad to fly', solid is good too).

As for SPlit ships i'm not worried because Paranid ships are so far ahead of the others that any other good ships are going to level the playing field - at least a little.

[tomchk]

I really hope they can bring back reactors, perhaps in a way that is complex/interesting for the player but simplified in NPC simulation (for performance purposes). :/

[Falcrack]

If defense drones were easier to command and control, then a ship like a Cerberus of Gorgon might be a viable alternative to a nemesis. But the drones launch too slowly, and the player has little to no control over what the defense drones do when launched, sadly.

[chew-ie]

If defense drones were easier to command and control, then a ship like a Cerberus of Gorgon might be a viable alternative to a nemesis. But the drones launch too slowly, and the player has little to no control over what the defense drones do when launched, sadly.

Are you participating in the open beta of patch 3.0? Drones are a lot better there - I use them for the first time now on all my capitals.

[Imperial Good]

in player hands its going to be a substitute for the nemesis

Assuming the ship is at least about as fast and agile. Otherwise 1 gun for better mobility and an extra shield is well worth the trade.

Wait for the next DLC, if it happens to be Terrans. At least lore-wise, I think they should bring some solid power creep. But again, that can still be offset through other downsides, like cost, difficulty of purchase due to low faction rep, etc.

I am guessing cost would be the main balancing factor. Would make sense for Terrans to use a unique set of ship construction wares which are difficult to manufacture using expensive and hard to build stations. Possibly a lot of Nividium usage. Their ships were designed for top of the range performance with no expenses spared built in specialist facilities.

As long as the same cost of other ships kill their ships it would be balanced. Yes one could have 1 doom destroyer (Valhalla, Odin, Osaka), but many Odysseus which costs the same would be equally or more effective.

[mr.WHO]

To be honest, 90% of time I fly Nemesis, because it's most flexibe (5 weapon mount + some space for marines for boarding).
With 3.0 drone control, frigates, like Cerberus also become viable.

Alternatively I fly my pimped Eclipse - I picked it over Pulsar, because sacrifice of 2 weapon mounts for additional shield is good tradeoff.
I'm looking forward to new Paranid heavy fighter.



This is when I "fly". These days, having an empire myself I ususally stand on my flagship Collossus somewhere near frontlines.

[Dinadin]

To be honest, 90% of time I fly Nemesis, because it's most flexibe (5 weapon mount + some space for marines for boarding).
With 3.0 drone control, frigates, like Cerberus also become viable.

Unfortunately 5 main weapons+super speed is still much, much more better than just 2 weapons+ability to launch drones+1 more shield.

All other corvettes and frigates should get 1 more weapon in order to be able to compete with Nemesis and new Split corvette.

Even if new ship will have only 1 shield, 6w+1s will kill any 2w+3s ships without effort and probably without even loosing that shield. Naked man with a gun always kill armored knight with a sword.

[mr.WHO]

All other corvettes and frigates should get 1 more weapon in order to be able to compete with Nemesis and new Split corvette.

I'd rather go with +1 weapon for gunships and +2 turrets for frigates.

[Dinadin]

I'd rather go with +1 weapon for gunships and +2 turrets for frigates.

Damn, your idea is much better. In this case gunships could finally receive their own role instead of being just "inferior frigates without landing pad and less shielding"

[chew-ie]

I'd rather go with +1 weapon for gunships and +2 turrets for frigates.

Damn, your idea is much better. In this case gunships could finally receive their own role instead of being just "inferior frigates without landing pad and less shielding"

So it's settled then. Devs? Deeevs?

[mr.WHO]

Damn, your idea is much better. In this case gunships could finally receive their own role instead of being just "inferior frigates without landing pad and less shielding"

Gunships are cheap escort class that can easily focus almost all it's weapons towards single target.
Corvettes, gunships on steroids that sacrifice turrets for more gun mounts and stronger shields/armor, also more expensive than gunship. You can also make them very effective bombers (albeit Eclipse or Pulsar are cheaper and less vulnerable to capship fire)
Frigates are more like multi-purpose patrol craft (thus landing bay and drones). They also have biggest missile storage, so they can become dedicated missile boats.

I don't mind having them like that, but I would like them to diver to be less similar to eachother.
Thus +1 gun for gunship (this will give them even more direct firepower) and +2 turret for Frigates (will plug some coverage holes, but will not be OP due to frigates being more clumsy than gunships).


I have high hopes for new weapons, like flak turrets for M-size ships.