Re-introduce Malus (drawbacks) to Upgrades

Suggestions Balance
1

Currently each upgrade for passive ship modules improves some feature of the ship by “X” amount. Modules that do significant boosts are sometimes accompanied by a ‘malus’ or drawback. Such an example would be the Galvanized Hull module, which negatively affects rotation speed.

 

There is, however, a problem. The drawbacks of a module do not scale along with the benefit as the module is upgraded.

 

I would suggest that ALL modules be given some form of Malus to balance their use, and that this Malus scale with each upgrade so that each level of upgrade is not strictly “better” than another, but rather finer tuning of a ship’s capabilities to suit the pilot. At Mk1, there is no Malus, but the benefits of the module are very slight. At Mk2, Malus in introduced to the module, but only slightly. Mk3, 4, and 5 are evenly balanced between Malus and Benefit. As the Benefit increases, so does the Drawback.

 

The problem with our current system is that a ship with all Mk4 and 5 gear is superior in every single way to a ship with all Mk1 gear. Thus, there is a very small meta-game where players must reach Mk4 level to stand a chance at competing. As such, new players to the game, or even a tier are instantly at a huge disadvantage. (Consider that this is on top of ships with little-to-no synergy, and you have one heck of a power curve).

 

Thank you for your time.

2

The benefits of some modules are minor compared to the Malus… Like the Passive Hull, or Horizon Module… Or even the Power Unit Conduit!

3

The benefits of some modules are minor compared to the Malus… Like the Passive Hull, or Horizon Module… Or even the Power Unit Conduit!

 

And you just proved my point.

 

The Malus may be set correctly as the penalty for a fully upgraded Mk4 module, but the Malus doesn’t scale down for the Mk1 thru 3 versions. So effectively new players to a tier are being slapped with the full Negative Drawbacks of their modules when the actual power of said modules are even more minor.

 

It’s needlessly punishing beginning players who are thrown in against veterans. I am saying this as a veteran. Try downgrading one of your ships to Mk1/2 modules and see how you fare. Then think about how much worse it would have been with a ship at zero synergy…

4

as far as i remember, all maluses were like they are now on mk1 or mk2; it only made sense for a handful of modules to keep a low mark version (like lightweight hull), and the maluses still created cookie cutter builds, because they target mainly “the other thing you also want to have if you got much of this”.

 

i agree, a bonus malus system is a nice idea, to create wonderful systems, i saw many of those working like a charm (we had an alchemy system based on this in a game we scripted, mainly inspired by morrowind, where each ingredient added ups and downs to create a potion), but for that to work, you have to carefully build the whole minigame around this idea. together with implants, modules that have no maluses, ship slot configurations, ship bonuses, boosters, and team synergy, i do not think, the idea was bad to remove/streamline this feature. it - as i said - made only sense for a couple of modules anyway.

 

i like games, where every module has a purpose, and a mark 2 version has downsides over a mark 1, so basicly it does not just feel like “upgrading”, and therefore grindy. but for this, the entire philosophy would have to be different in this game. atm, the item upgrading is a minor grind you have to do, and endure. i rather have that more flexible and rewarding; in the end, fits are not about module quality, it is about module combination. So basicly, I do not want the increasing malus system to return. But I never say no, to more depth in the fitting, and options past “linear upgrades”, at a certain point, kinda what pirate modules supposed to do, just more “complete”. But that would only work with a complete overhaul, so I am not sure if we gonna see this.

5

And you just proved my point.

 

The Malus may be set correctly as the penalty for a fully upgraded Mk4 module, but the Malus doesn’t scale down for the Mk1 thru 3 versions. So effectively new players to a tier are being slapped with the full Negative Drawbacks of their modules when the actual power of said modules are even more minor.

 

It’s needlessly punishing beginning players who are thrown in against veterans. I am saying this as a veteran. Try downgrading one of your ships to Mk1/2 modules and see how you fare. Then think about how much worse it would have been with a ship at zero synergy…

I’ve been there, I know the struggle.

6

hmn…valid point - forwarded

7

hmn…valid point - forwarded

Hmm…

People would no longer buy so much upgrades with money - GS and that would reduce the sales for Gaijin, because of such drawbacks - maluses.

8

People would no longer buy so much upgrades with money - GS and that would reduce the sales for Gaijin.

 

Are you certain? Remember, now you can upgrade or outright buy a module with GS at any time to get an additional 3% synergy bonus.

 

Also, consider that with the way I have outlined the scaling of Benefit to Malus above, Mk 3 would still be the ideal balance. A 1 to 1 ratio.

 

For example:

 

Galvanized Hull:

 

Mk1- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 5 points. Malus: None.

 

Mk2- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 10 points. Malus: -5% rotation speed.

 

Mk3- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 15 points. Malus: -15% rotation speed.

 

Mk4- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 19 points. Malus: -19% rotation speed.

 

Mk5- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 23 points. Malus: -23% rotation speed.

 

 

 

Now, yes you could get the same effect of the Mk 3 item by having both a Mk 1 and 2 Galvanized on the same ship. So you’d be getting 15 points of resistance with only 5% rotation reduction. HOWEVER, that comes at the cost of eating up one of your hull slots that you could have used for something else.

 

The other option is to have each item become exponentially powerful:

 

Galvanized Hull:

 

Mk1- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 2 points. Malus: None.

 

Mk2- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 5 points. Malus: -2% rotation speed.

 

Mk3- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 12 points. Malus: -5% rotation speed.

 

Mk4- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 26 points. Malus: -12% rotation speed.

 

Mk5- Benefit: Increases all hull resistance by 55 points. Malus: -26% rotation speed.

 

 

This way you can’t achieve the same effect by just buying two of the lower class items and combining them.

 

Numbers are all theoretical, btw.

9

Nah, then there should be something like a Galvanized Armor Type I, II, III, IV and V and then they all get Mk1 - Mk5

10

Nah, then there should be something like a Galvanized Armor Type I, II, III, IV and V and then they all get Mk1 - Mk5

 

That…

 

Would completely defeat the purpose of what I was suggesting because it would put us right back into the current “arms race” mentality, where it’s all about who can get to the next gear level the fastest.

 

It’s not healthy for the game.

11

That…

 

Would completely defeat the purpose of what I was suggesting because it would put us right back into the current “arms race” mentality, where it’s all about who can get to the next gear level the fastest.

 

It’s not healthy for the game.

Maybe they will do the opposite of maluses. Instead of going with the penalty, they may actually remove it in mark 5.

Reason is simple. More people would buy mark 5 and that means more money. Profitable for those, who are obsessed with the best possible setup.

 

Imagine T5 mark 5 galvanized armor with no penalties or less penalty to ship’s rotation.

12

Maybe they will do the opposite of maluses. Instead of going with the penalty, they may actually remove it in mark 5.

Reason is simple. More people would buy mark 5 and that means more money. Profitable for those, who are obsessed with the best possible setup.

 

I could understand if they allowed Mk 5 to have an increase in power, but the same Malus as Mk 4. But removing it entirely? That would be… there would be no words.

13

I could understand if they allowed Mk 5 to have an increase in power, but the same Malus as Mk 4. But removing it entirely? That would be… there would be no words.

Money is their only goal. If that would bring them more money and they would knew it, they would go in such direction.

I hope not, but it’s most likely scenario.

14

I could understand if they allowed Mk 5 to have an increase in power, but the same Malus as Mk 4. But removing it entirely? That would be… there would be P2W

15

 

I could understand if they allowed Mk 5 to have an increase in power, but the same Malus as Mk 4. But removing it entirely? That would be… there would be P2W

 

Imagine this. All mark 5 options are unlocked. Not that you need to grind for 5-10 years to get all blueprints in Invasion, you also need to pay the full price for each crafted mark 5 weapon, module and equipment each time.

What is that, then?

16

Imagine this. All mark 5 options are unlocked. Not that you need to grind for 5-10 years to get all blueprints in Invasion, you also need to pay the full price for each crafted mark 5 weapon, module and equipment each time.

What is that, then?

P2W.

 

Creating module with downside and then at the moment it has best stats it also droppin downside is just xxxx.

Add to that

> u have to find module - it’s way easier for those with scanner[$$](when we at it… add Rockwell for uber farming)

> farming crystals will take ~week/module but wait u can buy those with $$

> crafting materials… pain to get unless you have hundreds of millions credits or scanner($$)

 

 

We would face bigger problem than we have atm… ppl already have problems with “P2W” premiums in T3(aka no free counter part for ships like Nuke, DE, Parallax) with mostly mk4 now add on top of that modules which will remove downsides of modules.

 

You are right that system could increase income but at the same time it would decrease amount of pilots. Overall they wouldn’t earn more.

 

 

btw I don’t get why it would be long time to get BP… 

I didn’t get BP from invasion and got all my weapon T5 BP’s around Feb, doing only SpecOps. Also in the process idk when some special modules but didn’t care about those.

So to get most crucial BP(weapons) u need ~4months of SpecOps - 1game every 3 days > not dat grindy

17

P2W.

 

Creating module with downside and then at the moment it has best stats it also droppin downside is just xxxx.

Add to that

> u have to find module - it’s way easier for those with scanner[$$](when we at it… add Rockwell for uber farming)

> farming crystals will take ~week/module but wait u can buy those with $$

> crafting materials… pain to get unless you have hundreds of millions credits or scanner($$)

 

 

We would face bigger problem than we have atm… ppl already have problems with “P2W” premiums in T3(aka no free counter part for ships like Nuke, DE, Parallax) with mostly mk4 now add on top of that modules which will remove downsides of modules.

 

You are right that system could increase income but at the same time it would decrease amount of pilots. Overall they wouldn’t earn more.

 

 

btw I don’t get why it would be long time to get BP… 

I didn’t get BP from invasion and got all my weapon T5 BP’s around Feb, doing only SpecOps. Also in the process idk when some special modules but didn’t care about those.

So to get most crucial BP(weapons) u need ~4months of SpecOps - 1game every 3 days > not dat grindy

Maybe they want to decrease the population count. Servers are bad as they are. Less people, means less overload and more sustainable and reliable servers, even if the population count is 150-1500 players only.

18

Maybe they want to decrease the population count. Servers are bad as they are. Less people, means less overload and more sustainable and reliable servers, even if the population count is 150-1500 players only.

that would be crazy. i mean cmon renting new servers and rolling out the server software - should be no more than 1-2 days of work; and in relation a few servers aren’t that expensive…

 

@OT:

what about modules, which have no maluses? how do you integrate those in the bigger picture?

and while i again mention, i like concepts like this, i also again repeat, this has to be planned from the start you build your module system; i don’t see any benefit in actual gameplay or in the finished fits, like it is atm.

I just fear, this is too late, and does not adress the deeper problems, or add real depth, nor does it really help those who still “farm up”.

 

instead: make “farming for a specific goal” easier, so players can quickly upgrade ships they want to equip, instead of spending months of gameplay, and balance everything on the top players / top farmers; make the game more rewarding experience; obviously, pay to grind less does not work out anyway; way better to have “unskippable low base grind”, and “pay to not grind at all” solutions. make items upgradable through tiers. stuff like that.

19

Currently each upgrade for passive ship modules improves some feature of the ship by “X” amount. Modules that do significant boosts are sometimes accompanied by a ‘malus’ or drawback. Such an example would be the Galvanized Hull module, which negatively affects rotation speed.

 

There is, however, a problem. The drawbacks of a module do not scale along with the benefit as the module is upgraded.

 

I would suggest that ALL modules be given some form of Malus to balance their use, and that this Malus scale with each upgrade so that each level of upgrade is not strictly “better” than another, but rather finer tuning of a ship’s capabilities to suit the pilot. At Mk1, there is no Malus, but the benefits of the module are very slight. At Mk2, Malus in introduced to the module, but only slightly. Mk3, 4, and 5 are evenly balanced between Malus and Benefit. As the Benefit increases, so does the Drawback.

 

The problem with our current system is that a ship with all Mk4 and 5 gear is superior in every single way to a ship with all Mk1 gear. Thus, there is a very small meta-game where players must reach Mk4 level to stand a chance at competing. As such, new players to the game, or even a tier are instantly at a huge disadvantage. (Consider that this is on top of ships with little-to-no synergy, and you have one heck of a power curve).

 

Thank you for your time.

It is a nice idea, but also dangerous. It will make it harder again to balance certain things and might make the game too complex for some players. In our oppinion it is best to have a good balance between modules with only positive effects and modules with positive and negative effects.

20

Thanks for the reply.