Railjack one manufacturer

[Nichivo]

52 minutes ago, Krankbert said:

Are you using different tactics and loadouts for your railjack right now? Or do you have just one loadout that you use for everything?

I can't speak for anyone, but myself. Yes! I have a solo build, a solo vs sentient build, a group build, a group vs sentient build, and an event murex farm build of both the solo and group variety.

If anything I need Favorites to save different setups, not having all my builds destroyed because the system is going to be dumbed down.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Nichivo

[Krankbert]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Nichivo:

I can't speak for anyone, but myself. Yes! I have a solo build, a solo vs sentient build, a group build, a group vs sentient build, and an event murex farm build of both the solo and group variety.

If anything I need Favorites to save different setups, not having all my builds destroyed because the system is going to be dumbed down.

Okay. Now the question is how much complexity there actually is and how much "complexity" you're making up yourself by needlessly maintaining different builds. You say you have anti-Sentient builds that are seperate from the build you use to do the event, which is the only Railjack mission in the entire game that has Sentient fighters.

[Teliko_Freedman]

I'm kinda against this avionics change.

I have several 3 cost Avionics that give quite a good amount of stats for their price.

If they're all going to all one manufacturer, then their costs are going to be of the 7 ranks versions.

My 3 cost avionics are then going to be rank 1 of the new avionics that probably cost way more to use even at Rank 1/7 and probably give less stats.

exa, my 3 cost Vidar Polar coil (Rank1) gives 42.5% on a grid 3, will become a rank 1 of 7 which has a drain of 5 for 12% +3 ranks from grid for 30% effect.

That's what I'm seeing out of this change.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Teliko_Freedman
error

[Nichivo]

5 minutes ago, Krankbert said:

Okay. Now the question is how much complexity there actually is and how much "complexity" you're making up yourself by needlessly maintaining different builds. You say you have anti-Sentient builds that are seperate from the build you use to do the event, which is the only Railjack mission in the entire game that has Sentient fighters.

semper paratus

[Krankbert]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Nichivo:

semper paratus

Right. You know what? You can keep making up mission types that don't exist and make builds you don't need even after the changes. Maybe prepare a build for a mission where the enemies ignore armor.

Meanwhile, the stuff that actually exists in the game doesn't require or particularly benefit from having different builds.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Krankbert

[Nichivo]

1 minute ago, Krankbert said:

Right. You know what? You can keep making up mission types that don't exist and make builds you don't need even after the changes. Maybe prepare a build for a mission where the enemies ignore armor.

Those that fail to plan, plan to fail.  Sure!  I completely believe having sentient avionics and never adding uses for them outside the event will be a thing. 😜  

[Teliko_Freedman]

We'll probably have a Railjack Bossfight one day.

[Krankbert]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Nichivo:

Those that fail to plan, plan to fail.  Sure!  I completely believe having sentient avionics and never adding uses for them outside the event will be a thing. 😜  

Yeah, sentient avionics as if there's more than one. Uses outside of the event, as if a mod that reduces damage to shields only has a use inside the event.

The point is: The missions that are actually in the game don't create a need for different builds. The game mechanics and the variety of avionics that exists in the game don't allow for optimized builds with large differences anyway. The fact that a guy who has builds for missions that don't even exist thinks differently doesn't exactly make me reconsider.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Krankbert

[Nichivo]

1 minute ago, Krankbert said:

The point is: The missions that are actually in the game don't create a need for different builds. The variety of avionics that exists in the game doesn't allow for builds with large differences anyway. The fact that a guy who has builds for missions that don't even exist thinks differently doesn't exactly make me reconsider.

The point is weak!

Your inability to come up with multiple builds with the current offerings is really scary. The current system absolutely allows for some builds with very large differences. You just keep playing meta junk that someone else told you was good. Let those of us that have seen maxed rank mobs on mot, and have a 99% completion rate with a 0% quit rate do our thing. 

By all means continue to try and tell others how to play the game, or convince people the build pool for Railjack is much more shallow, than in actuality. 

 

[Nichivo]

 

1 hour ago, Krankbert said:

Yeah, sentient avionics as if there's more than one.

I have 2 currently Sentient Fortitude, and Sentient Scalpel. Last time I checked, two is more than one, but maybe you are working with some new youngster math I am not familiar with. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Nichivo

[0_The_F00l]

4 hours ago, Krankbert said:

Are you using different tactics and loadouts for your railjack right now? Or do you have just one loadout that you use for everything?

There currently arent loadout slots,

so cant really comment on the number of loadouts directly but have gone through multiple iterations till i got to my "template build"

.

But in the current event i am focusing on the speed to get between points of the murex, damaging the enemies is not a priority.

lavan ion burn and conic nozzle takes a significant chunk but grants a lot more effects paired with my high speed engines and flow burn to completely avoid the fighting in space.

i get rid of forward artillery and use fire suppressant + void cloak in case there are enemies onboard and fires have spread when we return to ship.

Section density is downgraded to Vidar (do need to take care of the occasional splinter and boarding ships so cant get rid of them completely)

Particle ram is removed cause again , damaging ships is not needed the void hole is more a "oh S#&$ there are so many ships right outside" scenario as it disables their weapons for me to get out without slowing the ship with void cloak.

Anode cell is a life saver , the shield gating has helped be the difference between a fail and enough time to fix the breaches.

 

Of course i do have a beefy vidar reactor so i can still keep the top 3 (hull weave , bulkhead , hyperstrike) otherwise i would have had to settle for vidar versions of those as well,

Many others are not so lucky and they need to have even more builds to compensate.

Also my intriinsics in case you are curious:

 

I was actually looking forward to different load outs for different missions when not all missions are just exterminate.

[zehne]

The way I see it right now:

There are 'mandatory mods' for Rail-jacks.  This means there is progression in RJ.  But the build variety really only comes from a handful of avionics.  In particular it's from a select few passives like armor, gun heat, etc where a different house/down-ranked version has a significant portion of max.  This allows for flexibility in builds without trying to precisely balance all the points of avionics/RJ avioncs capacity(on the developer side).

IF house variety is taken away, a huge portion of the only build variety of RJ's will also be taken away. 

• Ship components don't really add to build variety either, they have RNG stats, people can/do farm until they get all max(or very near) RNG stats.

 

If anything the houses should be kept and they should be looked over/re-balanced.

i.e.:

• Zetki Bulk-Head is by far the best, but at least point drain wise it is balanced(ish).  17 for 506% or for another house 10 for 256%
• Conic Nozzle is unbalanced.  The best has a 13 point drain.  The second best has a 14 point drain. The worst has less than half the effect of max (but sorta point-drain balanced to the max)
• Forward Artillery is unbalanced.  2nd best is 13/14 Drain wise but only <1/2 the effect of best
• etc. etc.

So, what is a good balancing point?  Well imo it would be to:

1. Balance the Avionics for 'Max-loadout'
   1. re-balance tactical/battle avionics drain cost
      1. Allow for 1 Highest drain and 1 lowest drain/ 2 avg drain (i.e. 1st battle slot + 3rd battle slot)
   2. re-balance the point costs for avionics
      1. Highest gain = Highest cost
      2. 2nd best ~~80-90% of best
         1. Following another golden rule of games 'Everyone can reach 90%, the other 10% is earned'
      3. 3rd best is ~~50% of best
         1. Point cost from Best to 2nd best to 3rd best is the same
            1. Using a 3rd best in a slot instead of a 2nd allows the use of the best instead of a 2nd best in another
   3. Redistribute avionics drain/Reactor capacity in a fashion favoring balance
      1. i.e.  after accounting for battle/tactical avionics (1.1.1) make a max vidmar Rx able to slot 3 highest drain and 6 medium drain
         1. Max Lavan able to slot 2 highest drain, 7 medium drain
         2. Max Zekti able to slot 1 highest drain, 8 medium drain

I estimate that under these rules you'd want ~~

• Avg Battle/tactical avionic drain is 7-8  (~~30 drain for 4 avg ones)
• Max vidmar ~~130 points --> 100 points for passive avionics
  • Medium cost avionics are 9-10 drain
  • High cost avionics are 15 drain
  • Low cost avionics are 5 drain

Why? Well it's simple, if you followed these rules then:

• If you wanted more battle/tactical avionics you could use vidmar Rx and use all medium drain avionics
  • Or you could substitute some lowest drain avionics for medium or high drain avionics
• If you wanted more of the best passive stats you could sacrifice battle/tactical avionics
  • But like with everything, you'd basically have to give up everything to do so, meaning there are balance choices
• Re-balancing drain costs on Hyperflux would make the other RX choices viable.  Since you could get proportionate energy/avionics gain trade-offs

[danjoure]

Are you serious man? what your talking is the same as remove manufacturer an have more rank on each mod it will at the end made evrybody to have the same loadout.

Some time good think are cheap and bad thing are espensive it's just like that no there's need to argue on that

the interesting thing on the actual system is that you should think carfully of what you want  and how to get it.

It's too early to think about changing the avionnics.

Edited April 26, 2020 by danjoure

[JackHargreav]

Understandable. It can be a headache to manage avionics sometimes. New(ish) players just get confused by them probably and every new avionics have to have 3 versions and they have to give all three their own dropchance and location and whatever else. So it would take more time develop them too.

[PhoenixFury]

On 2020-04-24 at 3:24 PM, Nesodos said:

Cluttering your inventory with stuff that behaves like wonky mods with RNG on steroids isn't really unique.

They're not RNG like Rivens, they're different efficiencies of effect.  Some are low-cost/high effect but low maximum, others are high maximum but very inefficient per avionics point.

They had purpose, just like different mods.

I mean, you can't tell me with a straight face mods aren't wonky.  Nobody mounts hammer shot when they have vital sense, but they have options.

[Nesodos]

3 hours ago, PhoenixFury said:

They're not RNG like Rivens, they're different efficiencies of effect.  Some are low-cost/high effect but low maximum, others are high maximum but very inefficient per avionics point.

They had purpose, just like different mods.

I mean, you can't tell me with a straight face mods aren't wonky.  Nobody mounts hammer shot when they have vital sense, but they have options.

The RNG lies in aquiring all of them to have a real choice of builds because the droprates for the good stuff are horrible.

Hammer shots is actually very nice if you run a hybrid build and want more crit damage than vs can offer on its own.

[HexOmega111x]

Le 25/04/2020 à 11:41, danjoure a dit :

I have several loadout for my railjack, one for soloing one for party, one when i playing with friend, one for murex. I can play any off my loadout anywhere but it's not funny.

If manufacturer are removed there will be only one kind of railjack that's not good.

When you build our own railjack you don’t have to think about each game separately but like everything you need to take into consideration your way of playing and thus have a set corresponding to your way of playing. When my friends pilote my railjack i have to adapt my loadout to suit them .

It's too early in to change anything about railjack manufacturer. Let people understand how it work when they understand how it work they will realize how it 's amazing.

.

You do not know how it will affect build diversity. The actual system is over complicated for no real benefit. The current frame mods system is a mess and they can avoid having a similar mess with avionics in few years by making it more simple from the start. 

The progression rate do not justify to have son many layers of mods in its current state. Like the frame mods, the majority are already useless. 

[bad4youLT]

I wounder how many people understand that removing house from avionics crates major problem with reactor capacity , we wount be able to fill as many slots as bofore unless we keep unmaxed versions.

[Teliko_Freedman]

The unranked versions of those 7 rank avionics cost more than those 3 drain versions for way less effect too.