Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
local value = ArmedObjectPrice(fighter)
if value <= 0 then
value = 100000
end
if fighter.type == FighterType.CrewShuttle then
value = value + 40000
end
local baseValue = value * 0.125 that would make it 10x cheaper ( try setting it to 0.05 or so and see how it goes)
its line 113 in inventoryitemprice i assume thats for merchants/factory
The former allows any amount of build power to give a considerable bonus to fighter production. The latter is extremely asymptotic. Half your effort is spent doubling production speed, and half more effort spirals to the production cap. Always cap out your production speed, and do not bother with any lesser effort.
Another thing I experimented with is multiple _massive_ blocks of assembly - millions of credits worth.
Even without the massive blocks, with a bunch of hydra systems I can get a build time in the low two minute range.
---------
The problem is though, that as soon as I add a second line of (fighter) production, the build times shoot up.
So instead of building one fighter in 2 minutes, I can build 2 fighters in 15 minutes. Bwuh???? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Allegedly the formula makes sense, but adding a second work queue making everything worse seems ... counterintuitive.
It's 'optimal' - but you're optimising something kind of weird, e.g. minimal effort into making the fighters pump out fast (hence only one row), and then minimal player effort (only swap in once per hour ... and if you send the ship on the mission from adjacent to the station it'll return adjacent to the station).
Maybe it's optimising for 'laziness'?
Maybe it wouldn't be too hard to get two production queues going with ~5 minute build times, but it might involve hucking a couple of mil (or even 10-20 mil) of assembly blocks at the station for the privilege.
The point being that if you're going to spend that much just on assembly, you're probably better off building a second station?
-------
TLDR: maybe we're looking at it wrong, maybe the problem is that we want to have multiple lines of fighter production, and if we just accept that having one is waaaaaay better than two or three then maybe that'll take a lot of the pain out of building fighters quickly???
???
(NB: I could be grossly and radically wrong, if so I apologise)
Your best bet for producing (non-garbage) fighters quickly and being able to replace them as needed is to have a couple of stations producing them. That way if you ever lose fighters, you can just head back to one of your stations and replenish to get back into action. The station will start producing again while you're playing.
I have long suggested that fighter factories should provide a boost to production of a docked ship's fighters, but ♥♥♥♥ knows why the devs don't want to make useless stations actually useful.
If I had to hazard a guess as to why the fighter production times were altered in such a way, it would be "a balancing issue" which is code for "we just don't want you replacing them during combat."
So we get to wait three days IRL for a full hangar instead, only to see them automatically and instantly wiped out against literally any enemy. Nice.
I will restate my opposition to hardcapping and AGAIN recommend making it expensive to achieve instead of mathematically impossible. Let the players sacrifice one function for another. Let them create. Let them strategize.