Here’s how I’m assuming the progress bars in this example work (please correct me if I’m wrong):
The width of the bar is essentially the amount of power/crew provided.
The green portion is the amount of power/crew used.
The red portion is thus the slack you have to work with.
I assume that if the mark would go past the right edge (i.e., more power/crew used than provided), the entire bar would turn red.
–> This raises the question of what the bar would look like when I have provided power/crew but have not used any (e.g., no modules added but a single crew compartment); the mark would then be at the extreme left and the entire bar (everything to the right of the mark) would be red.
Assuming this is how it’s intended to work, I’m all for it (except the last little bit I noted, because “You don’t have enough power/crew” should look different from “You haven’t used any power/crew”).
i can’t think of anything else that is wrong with the display (everything but the blueprint that, in my opinion could use some tweaking), well except one thing, but its purely cosmetic, next to the change [hull] button could we add the class of the hull to the right if the hull name?
also i realized with the bars, when we have met crew requirement the bar is complete green, right, so theres no easy way to guess how much crew you have left, what if we had unused crew start a blue section that came from the left of the bar as to represent how much crew is unused? (same as power)
heres an example:
Oooh I like the idea of unused crew on the left, that’s pretty cool. Currently the bar shows the crew supplied (green) and any crew deficit (red). You have to get rid of the red to have a workable ship.
the last thing i can think of, and this isn’t really necessary, what if we could zoom in and out on the ship, that would be useful for larger ships, and might i add the gratuitously (pun intended) large ships the mod makers come up with, other than that i find nothing immediately wrong with the screen as it is, however it took me a few seconds to figure out how that arc worked because it went of the screen, and was overlayed other things on the ship. This inspired my idea of zooming in and out.
On a related note, if zooming isn’t possible, how about shrinking the module slots just a bit? No smaller than maybe 75% of their current size, but handing we modders with our “gratuitously large” ships a bit more breathing space to work with would be much appreciated.
For the modules list on the left side would it be possible to have modules blacked out/go red if there is not enough power/crew etc for them.
Or maybe a small tick box at the bottom of the modules box that allows you to show just the modules that wont surpass the current power/crew etc levels?
Also back in the days of being a noob (and still now tbh) I often found myself getting confused as to which weapons where good for what (past explicit descriptions in the module notes) would there be a possibility to add say a grading of bad-poor-average-good-great etc for the individual stats of weapons?
For example a cheap’o laser’s cost stats would be color coded white to show its really cheap but with its range stat a strong red helping players know/understand how good the module really is? (Of course experience will tell people but this could help?).
Maybe again have this as an optional tick box to be toggled.
(PS The ability to compare modules side-by-side would be pretty sweet!)
I’d very much rather that the modules not be blacked out; I usually do my designs by adding the weapons/armor/shields/engines that I want and then adding the power and crew modules required for it, rather than adding some power and crew modules and then fitting whatever will work with that. I have no objections to an optional filter, as long as I don’t need to toggle it to set it how I want it every time I go into the design screen.
I’m not entirely sure that this would be all that helpful? Where does a weapon with a ‘bad’ rate of fire and ‘good’ damage sit? How about one with ‘good’ damage but ‘poor’ tracking and ‘bad’ armor penetration? Are we rating weapons within the same role and ship category, or are we comparing things like Cruiser Defense Lasers to Cruiser Beam Lasers? CDLs have poor range, especially in comparison to something like a Cruiser Missile, but on the other hand they really don’t need that much range to be useful in the intended role; enemy fighters will either come to your cruisers or they won’t be a threat that your cruisers need to worry about, and so of greater concern for the CDL is its ability to track the target and cover the ship it’s mounted on.
For that matter, how would it help you with something like the Quantum Blaster? Quantum Blasters have similar range and rate of fire to Cruiser Lasers, better tracking than cruiser lasers, functionally identical shield penetration, slightly better armor penetration, lower cost, same crew requirements, and lower power requirements, and lower damage. Is this better or worse in the short-range cruiser anti-shield role than the Cruiser Laser is? Its statistics, aside from damage, would generally be rated at least as well as the statistics of the Cruiser Laser, but experience says that in general the Cruiser Laser is a significantly better weapon in the short-range anti-shield and DPS role. In the end, you really just have to learn what weapons are decent in which roles by experience; giving the statistics a rating of some kind might be marginally useful, but it’s also potentially rather deceptive, and it also requires you to determine what the comparison basis happens to be.
Almost every weapon in the game has exceptionally bad tracking compared to the Anti-Fighter Missile Launcher, and any shield penetration value greater than or equal to 27 is ‘good’ while anything under 27 is ‘bad’ (for unsupported weapons) for the simple reason that shield penetration of at least 27 allows the weapon to damage all the shields in the base game while any penetration under 27 means that most player-created cruiser designs are immune to the weapon unless something else takes out the shields. Additionally, how do you handle EMPs and Disruptor Bombs? The only statistics those have which are really comparable to any other weapon in the game are their range and rate of fire; how good is an EMP strength of 2700 compared to a missile damage of 44? How do you compare the Disruptor Bomb’s shield destabilization to an Ion Cannon? Since it’s the only weapon in the game with that type of attack, does it rate a ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ or ‘ugly?’ Is the EMP Missile I’s EMP attack sufficiently worse than that of the the EMP Missile II or Cruiser EMP Beam to rate a ‘bad?’
i think your missing the point a little bit and fox correct me if im wrong but i believe the color coding is there just to give a general visual reputation to compare that are to the rest of the weapons of that type, not to ‘rank’ that weapon.
also question, is it true that there’s really no strait upgrades in the game, you always sacrifice something for another thing (money included)
Look, let’s do a solid example for this. Let’s look at the Cruiser Laser and the Quantum Blaster:
Cruiser Laser Quantum Blaster
Cost 113 75
Weight 135 95
HP 100 100
Power 11 3
Crew 4 4
Damage 20 8
Shield Pen 55 48
Armor Pen 15 18
Max Range 490 450
Opt Range 400 350
Min Range 90 110
Tracking 0.9 1.5
Fire Interval 430 600
If you are defining the ‘weapon category’ as the way in which the weapon is used, there’s often only maybe two or three weapons to compare within a weight class. While if you mean within the weight class things become a lot less useful because you start comparing (e.g., cruiser lasers versus multiple warhead missiles), and GSB doesn’t really sort weapons into different categories, either.
Now if you were to color-code these things within the ‘weapon category,’ which by the way is at present ill-defined, then the Quantum Blaster would get ‘green’ marks in cost, weight, power, armor penetration, and tracking, and ‘red’ marks in damage, shield penetration (which doesn’t actually matter if we’re not using modded shield generators with >48 shield resistance), each range (although it’s debatable how you’d mark the optimum range), and fire interval. Both weapons would receive the same marks for crew and HP.
How does this help me? I see 5 green marks for Quantum Blasters and 6 green marks for Cruiser Lasers (and one of the green marks for Cruiser Lasers is on something that doesn’t matter in comparison to the Quantum Blaster because shield penetration values greater than 27 are functionally identical in the absence of mods, while another, the Optimum Range, is something that I’d be hard-pressed to call ‘better’ one way or the other). If I’m doing a side-by-side comparison of the two weapons, then yes, it can help me see what differs and how it differs, and it indicates which way is ‘better,’ as far as how the differences affect weapon performance (though again, it’s debatable which way is better for certain differences).
If it’s just a grading of the weapon statistics from good to bad, then it’s really not that helpful. Proton Beams and Cruiser Beam Lasers both have ‘bad’ fire intervals relative to many other cruiser weapons, and even relative to some weapons in the same nominal category (e.g. a Cruiser Pulse Laser, which, as with Proton Beams and Cruiser Beam Lasers, is a mid-range anti-armor beam-type weapon ineffective against most cruiser shields; one name for this category might be ‘cruiser beams’). They also have ‘average’ range compared to weapons within the category of cruiser main battery weapons (which is a category from which I would exclude Cruiser Pulse Lasers, but which would, to me, include things like Cruiser Missiles and Multiple Warhead Missiles and Cruiser Lasers).
Overall, I feel that this kind of thing is decent for side-by-side comparison tools, but I really don’t think it’s helpful outside of that context.
With Quantum Blasters and Cruiser Lasers, I see about as much green on either weapon (and, if we were to drop the Optimum Range out, which I’d be inclined to do since I’m not all that certain that I feel that a higher optimum range is necessarily better, and the Shield Penetration since the two weapons are effectively equal on that score, the Quantum Blaster gets more green than the Cruiser Laser), which conceals the fact that, unless we’re looking at something that has more than 15 but no more than 18 armor resistance, you need about 3.5 Quantum Blasters to match the performance of a Cruiser Laser. Is there a place for Quantum Blasters? Absolutely. You more or less cannot find a cheaper gun which is effective against all base-game shields, which means that if you’re looking to make something cheap rather than maximizing cost-effectiveness, Quantum Blasters are a standout weapon.
However, I would say that under most reasonable metrics, the Quantum Blaster is a strictly worse weapon than the Cruiser Laser. A rating system just tends to obscure this, particularly when, as with Cruiser Lasers and Quantum Blasters, there are only really two or three weapons in that particular role because the statistic rating basically gets pinned to ‘best in class’ or ‘worst in class,’ or when the category is too general (e.g. ‘cruiser weapons’ - comparing Cruiser Lasers and Cruiser Beam Lasers might be interesting, but it’s not necessarily a particularly appropriate comparison to make since the two weapons fill rather different roles).
i definitely see how this could be a problem, and if it was put I guess some people would use it that way. But i see it as a visual representation to make comparison more lightweight, not to ‘rate’ the weapons… I just repeated myself didn’t I
the root of what i’m getting at here is an easier way to compare weapons, whether that be a things that color codes or pulls up 2 weapons at the same time. That reminds me, i don’t think any of you have played payday 2, but when modifying them or buying new ones or just looking at your inventory it will place the weapon you currently have equipped on the right side of a column, and the one you are looking at on a left column. on the left column if a number is lower for a rating then the weapon you have equipped the number turn red, if the same it’s white, and if higher it green.
that aside I believe from your writings what you are scared of most is a person misunderstand this color coding and make bad ships? if that is the case, you must understand that ANY rating or stat system, even the current one, has this problem. But i think if we just revamped the system so it’s more user friendly (a number with even just 4 digits becomes hard to remember easily if you’re looking through all the weapons) we could make shipbuilding a slightly faster process.
If you just slap a sticker next to a Cruiser Laser’s fire interval that says ‘good’ or paint it green or something like that, you’re essentially rating the weapon itself, and it’s easy to interpret ‘more green’ or ‘more positive ratings’ as ‘better weapon,’ regardless of whether or not that was the intended effect or whether or not that interpretation is actually true.
If it’s a component of a side-by-side comparison tool or some such thing, that’s different because then you know what it’s being compared with, but if it’s not then you’re presumably comparing it against everything within the same category, and GSB’s weapon categories are very loose - we have cruiser weapons, we have frigate weapons, and we have fighter weapons. There’s no in-game category distinguishing cruiser beams from cruiser missiles or anti-fighter weapons, and I don’t really see the point of the system if it’s rating Multiple Warhead Missile statistics on the same scale as Cruiser Laser, as the two weapons are used in very different ways. MWMs get used in large numbers on slow ships intended to sit back and lob missile after missile at the enemy fleet, cruiser lasers get used in generally lower numbers on fast ships intended to close with the enemy rapidly and unload.
For a direct, side-by-side comparison, yes, highlighting which weapons have the better statistic in what category is useful. Rating all the statistics of all the cruiser weapons all on the same scale like this, though? That’s not that useful at all.
If you want to divide the cruiser weapons into categories based on how they are used, what do you get?
Category 1 - Blasters: Cruiser Laser, Quantum Blaster, Tribe Howitzer, Parasite Flak Cannon, Order Radiation Gun*, Alliance Lightning Gun*, Alliance Fusion Torpedo*. Short-range, mainly anti-shield, also usually good against nearby frigates, generally poor against armor.
Category 2 - Cruiser Beams: Cruiser Pulse Lasers**, Cruiser Beam Lasers, Proton Beams, Federation/Rebel Fusion Cannons, Imperial/Alliance Beam Lasers. Mid-range, mainly anti-armor and generally bad against cruiser shields. Mostly useful against cruisers and slow frigates, though Cruiser Pulse Lasers are good against all frigates and are a decent anti-fighter weapon.
Category 3 - Cruiser Plasma: Light/Standard/Heavy Plasma, Swarm Disruptor Beam***, Parasite Plasma Flinger. Generally upper-mid to lower-long range general purpose weapons with decent anti-armor performance capable of penetrating all shields in the unmodded game.
Category 4 - Short-range Missiles: Cruiser Rockets, Megaton Missiles, Fast Missiles, Order Firefly Rockets, Order Nuclear Missiles. These have cover roughly the same range band as cruiser beams and plasma, fill roughly the same role as plasma, benefit from painters, and are vulnerable to point defense and scramblers.
Category 5 - Long-range Missiles: Cruiser Missiles, Multiple Warhead Missiles, Nomad Missiles. These weapons fill a similar role to short-range missiles and cruiser plasma but have a fairly significant range advantage (~200 more range on an MWM compared to standard Plasma or Fast Missiles, which is roughly a 22% range advantage over those weapons), benefit from painters, and are vulnerable to scramblers and point defense.
Category 6 - Anti-fighter Weapons: Cruiser Defense Lasers. Parasites can add Flak Cannons (though these are only really useful against fighter swarms), and Tribe can add Autocannons (although these appeared to be incapable of harming anything the last time I played with them despite their statistics suggesting that they should fit here). Cruiser Pulse Lasers kind of fit here as well, though they have fairly significant issues against the faster laser fighters and have a somewhat large minimum range. Against the very fast fighters, weapons with high rates of fire like Quantum Blasters and Cruiser Lasers will also fit somewhat well into this category, though those weapons have too little tracking to be useful against normal laser fighters when compared to Cruiser Defense Lasers and even Cruiser Pulse Lasers.
Category 7 - Anti-Frigate Weapons: Cruiser Pulse Lasers, Quantum Blasters, Parasite Flak Cannons, Alliance Lightning Guns, Federation Fusion Beams, Tribe Autocannons. Cruiser Lasers, Light Plasma, Parasite Plasma Slingers, Tribe Howitzers, Order Radiation Guns, Alliance Beam Lasers, and Imperial Beam Lasers kind of fit here but have somewhat too little tracking to be particularly useful against fast frigates, while Cruiser Defense Lasers almost fit in here but really have too little shield penetration to be all that useful against shielded frigates. Heavier cruiser weapons were excluded because, while they are effective against slow frigates, so is just about any heavy weapon you can find, and the heavier cruiser weapons are mostly incapable of hitting mid-speed or better frigates. Plus, I have to draw the line somewhere, as an anti-frigate weapon category that includes everything is not particularly useful.
Order Radiation Guns, Alliance Fusion Torpedoes and Lightning Guns really have too much armor penetration to fit into this category, and in this respect they fit better into Category 3. However, the Fusion Torpedo and especially the Lightning Gun have too little range to fit into Category 3; the Radiation Gun comes closer to fitting in, range-wise (especially in comparison to the Parasite Plasma Flinger which has only an 80-range advantage, or the Light Plasma with its ~100 range advantage), but ultimately I feel that its range places it more in with the blasters than with the plasmas. Also, in case you’re wondering, despite the name Fusion Torpedoes appear to be invalid targets for point defenses and guidance scramblers, which also excludes them from Category 4. I’d be kind of tempted to give these three weapons their own category, say a Category 1b (since their range profile most nearly matches that of a blaster) or a Category 3b (since they are general-purpose weapons like plasma, with decent armor penetration and the ability to defeat any base-game shield), but I don’t really feel that faction-exclusive weapons should really be given their very own category when that category only covers two factions. If I were to add such a category, I’d be tempted to take Plasma Slingers, Light Plasma, Radiation Guns, and Fusion Torpedoes for a Category 3b - Short-Range Plasma, and either leave Lightning Guns where they are or have a Category 1b which only contains the Lightning Gun.
** - I’m almost tempted to take the Cruiser Pulse Laser out of the Cruiser Beams category as it’s a significantly lighter weapon than the other cruiser beams, with significantly lower damage and armor penetration, somewhat shorter maximum range, and a much higher rate of fire. However, it’s still a mid-range weapon which mostly fills an anti-armor role, and the only other category that I feel it sits well within - anti-frigate - doesn’t really have any really defining characteristics aside from tracking speed.
*** - Despite visually appearing to be a beam weapon and despite being named as such, the Swarm Disruptor Beam fits in better with cruiser plasma weapons than cruiser beam weapons as far as its statistics go. It’s a little light on the armor penetration for a plasma weapon, but its armor penetration is still decent enough for general use (but far too low to fit in with the other heavy beam weapons, and although the armor penetration is comparable to the Cruiser Pulse Laser, that’s a light beam weapon with a much higher rate of fire), and unlike other beam weapons, the Disruptor can beat any shield in the base game. The Disruptor’s ranges and crew requirements are also more similar to cruiser plasma than to other cruiser beam weapons, though its power requirements are more similar to the other beam weapons than to the plasmas. I’d be tempted to place it into a separate category from plasmas, but I can’t really think of any other ~900 range weapons with middling anti-armor capability and good anti-shield performance, and I don’t really want to have a single-weapon category.
While some of the categories could perhaps be condensed (e.g. Short-range and Long-range Missiles could perhaps be combined, though then the category covers mid-range and long-range weapons rather than just one range band or the other; Short-range Missiles and Plasma could probably be combined, though the missiles have advantages and disadvantages that plasma doesn’t; and missiles and plasma could possibly be combined as the two cover mostly general-purpose weapons in the upper-third of the possible engagement range bands).
Regardless, the point is that if you start splitting the weapons up by usage, you really have very few weapons within any given category in most cases. The only really significant exception is if you were to merge the two missile categories, in which case you’d have 5 weapons available to all factions. Or, if you were to merge missiles and plasma, in which case you’d have 8 weapons available to all factions.
The other categories don’t really have the kind of overlap that I’d want to see before merging them unless the categories were a very generic short/mid/long range kind of deal rather than a typical use categorization like I gave above. Once you split the weapons into the roles that they’re useful for, you find that there’s really only two or three weapons in any given category.
If you want to include a rating system that assigns some kind of great/good/average/poor/bad marking to weapon statistics and only looks at weapons which are used the same way (especially if you limit it - as would be sensible in my opinion - only to those weapons available to the faction that you’re designing a ship for), you’ll often come down to marking each statistic as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because there’s not really any middle ground with so few weapons to compare against.
If you instead compare it to all the possible weapons out there, it’s also not a particularly useful comparison because it washes out the distinctions between the weapons in the same role. It might mark out the weapon roles somewhat due to having similar color patterns on their statistics blocks, but I rather suspect that one of the first things you learn as you play GSB is what kinds of weapons are useful for which purposes anyways, and you still need to figure out how to build a proper design using a type of weapon before knowing that it fits into e.g. the mid-range anti-armor role is all that helpful to you.
