When V3.0.0 patch will be released ?
The release is never late, nor is it early, it arrives precisely when it needs to 
7 Likes
Sorry, but Iâm not sure I fully understand what you mean.
If I design two otherwise identical components, but one without EH and the other with EH, why the second should it cost the same of the first? It has better performance, so it seems normal to me that it should be more expensive (i.e., more money and more resources). And this is independent from the possibility to face an opponent that uses electronic attacks. Simply higher features should cost more.
1 Like
Clicking a non-gas giant body without an existing colony gives you the option to create a colony. A popup confirms the colony has been created.
Heck yeah dude. I think this used to around back in the VB days, and it will be super useful for making deep space tracking bases and doing stuff in Sol. Iâm a big fan of right clicking things for context menus.
1 Like
Because itâs too specialized technology. You can use the best EH in each of your components (component Cost x2), and never meet anyone who uses HPMs. This technology is useless against all other types of weapons. This way, you will just waste a lot of resources.
Armor and shields protect against all types of weapons (with one exception for each). EH protects against only one type of weapon. It is often more profitable and cheaper for you to install more shields than to use EH.
EH also does not guarantee protection of components. You might just get unlucky, and one HPM shot will destroy your expensive (and because of that, the only) long-range FC on your flagship.
It has too many flaws. So the lack of cost increase just gives you a reason to use EH more than in Size 0.1 sensors or low-tech components.
This is spot on. So from a balance perspective there are two options here:
1.) Make the cost increase more resonable to the value (maybe x1.25 cost max level)
2.) Make hardening valuable in more situations. For example if other electronic components take normal damage or are destroyed a new event similar to âsecondary explosionâ is added: âElectrical surgeâ. This rolls against the electronic damage table and damage scales with âsizeâ of the component taking damage or being destroyed. Basically any electronic component can cause cascading failures in the whole ships electronic systems. Another option to increase itâs value alot would be rework jump shock to be a temporary electronic disruption and have hardening tech reduce the delay as a secondary effect.
2 Likes
Thus, it will be a mandatory technology if you donât want to lose all sensors, Jammers and FCs from a single hit. Youâre suggesting making ships more vulnerable without that.
Squadron Transit already serves this purpose. In combination with it, Jump Shock would have a near-zero duration, so you could just use EH on a 0.1 Active Sensor and a cheap close-range FC, and shoot all JP guards in 10 seconds. This still doesnât give you significant reason to use EH on expensive components.
If the cost increase is negligible, then you have almost no reason not to put it on every component.
Steve made the cost increase negligible. 
1 Like
Is massive armour, reduced missile explosion chance, low engine/reactor power mods mandatory to use to prevent secondary explosions? No, because these mechanics are balanced so there is a chance the bad outcome happens and trade-offs where depending on situation it could be worth it or not.
That is why I didnât add any values set in stone to my ideas just examples of what options & tools there are to use for balancing, as well as some ideas for new mechanics that could be added, and why I used words like rework and rebalance.
My post contained no judgement on if the balancing should change in one direction or another, just an agreement with your statement that paying x2 more for a system which in most turns out useless is not balanced and not fun, and a few ideas to make it not useless.
1 Like
These were not very good ideas. But if you have any new ones, you can always write them in the suggestions section. Just try not to imply a lot of work and rebalancing for Steve.
Iâm sorry if I was rude. Sometimes I just donât notice it.
This allow us to use it for every system we design and build, without any reasoning if it is convenient or not.
I could accept it only if more materials would be necessary to obtain harder systems.
I feel this a good balance: no money/wealth cost, but minerals usage.
One thing to consider here is that there is still a hidden cost to the electronic hardening - Refits.
You will almost certainly harden every component that can be now but you will still need to go around refitting everything if for some reason the need arises.
That being said it would be nice to have more reasons to use electronic hardening, HPMs are kind of a non-factor in my experience so unless you are RPing then there is very little mechanical reason to do hardening.
IMO all 3 approaches would be better to having it be a no-brainer choice of it never being worth it or always being worth it to add. As far as I can see no one voiced any arguments why these are bad ideas btw, just that the balance of them would be off (which is something different).
Balance the cost better:
Large risk against niche weapon â Smaller extra cost
Electronic surge idea tradeoff:
Small extra risk added against all weapons â high cost of Electronic Hardening
Rework Jump Shock idea tradeoff:
Electronics helping in JP Assaults/Transits â high cost of Electronic Hardening
1 Like
Because Electronic surge and Rework Jump Shock are adding/changing mechanics that will require writing a certain amount of code and spending time on testing and balancing. Changing the cost increase is just editing a couple of numbers, its much less work.
This is the reason. Electronic Hardening isnât like ECCM, which is useful against everyone. Before the change, there was little reason to even research electronic hardening, let alone deploy it, unless you had a massive problem with one particular spoiler. Even then, there were probably other techs that were more cost effective to research.
So the change to allow zero additional cost for EH was to give you a reason to research it in the first place and make it a real research choice vs better weapon, better jammers, better engines, etc..
3 Likes
I noticed a point about orbital bombardment where now all ships are meant to fire while their accuracy gets adjusted to â# of FFDs on groundâ/â# of shots from orbitâ.
âŚBut doesnât that just result into a huge waste and/or calculation burden on the player. Say you have ten times as many guns in orbit as FFDs on ground. (could easily happen if you just send a small Marine clearing mission instead of a full scale invasion force)
In this case you shot ten times more but with only 10% accuracy, causing the average of hits still to be 100% of FFD #, - just as before as if not having added any ship guns.
However, you now have to pay ten times the maintenance despite no gain. (perhaps the planet gets hit more from misses, causing more dust, which might situationally be a gain or not)
The only way to prevent this would be to meticulously keep track of the nebulously to research counter of currently deployed FFDs and then tailor your orbital assistance firing stance ships accordingly. So it seems not to fulfill any RP expectations of âat least some gainsâ from more orbital gun readiness, and causes some management burden.
I could see this adjusted in two ways. Either the guns simply stop firing again once #FFD is reached, or the return on fire investment canât decline so linearly after exceeding #FFD.
E.g. if there was a âminimum hit chanceâ (like 10%), the formula would adjust to 0.1 + 0.9*#FFD/#guns.
Adding more guns could also increase the intensity of each hit event, so one shot is now a triple salvo or something, giving some extra damage to the biggest gun used.
Or maybe just some sqrt() or similar on the #FFD/#gunsexpression to take the linearity out.
Or another version of âstop firing at #FFDâ: Ships alternate on firing duty and thus save wear on the guns using only the readiest of all. Instead of more shots with less accuracy, you have same shots with the #FFD/#guns as a multiplier to maintenance costs.
Anyway, just some ideas.
Lurker mode!
Looks like mine warfare just became more viable!
For a moment I though 3.0 was released, I passed out.
5 Likes
Do I understand correctly that a 2nd stage missile with lurker module will start at lurker mode and start burning out itâs own fuel after locking on a target only, so itâs actually remote mining tech?
SJW: Yes, thatâs correct.
2 Likes
That is how I read it, 1st stage for moving it to location for minefield. 2nd stage auto-sits in lurker mode until itâs sensors find something to wake up and burn towards for hugs and kisses.