Open Space Artisan Shipwright Subcomponents

ThunderVamp · Oct 20, 2021

Let's talk about Shipwright components for a few minutes here.

Now, everyone knows that RE'd space components are the undisputed kings. It only makes sense, you keep grinding after achieving Master Pilot to get the pieces of loot required to make a great RE'd component.

Crafted has its place.

But there's a flaw with crafted components that has always existed, and it shouldn't exist.

That flaw is the subcomponents used in the crafting. Every subcomponent can boost one or more stats on a final component. But that boost comes at a needless cost of some other stats. I'm going to give examples of this.

Let's start with the top of the list, Armor.
A Mark I Armor Panel (no subcomponent used) has a possible maximum stats of:
230 Armor
230 Hitpoints
680 Mass (lowest is better)
This assumes you have perfect resources. Results can vary with resource quality obviously.

After building mine, I have 13 experimentation points to use. I spend 9 points on Armor, and 4 points on Mass to reduce that as much as possible, resulting in the following armor panel:
230 Armor
188 Hitpoints
772 Mass

Not a bad armor panel overall for a Mark I.

Now, let's make another one exactly the same, but let's make it with a Mark 1 Armor Reinforcement Panel.
The Armor Reinforcement Panel panel will allow for:
Pros:
An increase in Armor and/or;
An increase in Hitpoints;
Cons:
An increase in Mass
With skill tapes, you'll have 13 points to spend in these categories. In this case, I'll put 9 points in Armor to max that and 4 points in Mass to try and reduce the amount of mass that will be added with this subcomponent.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
+58 Armor
+47 Hitpoints
+116 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
288 Armor
235 Hitpoints
888 Mass

I gained a mere 58 armor and 47 hitpoints, at a cost of 116 mass.

Why? Why add the mass? The part's not overpowered without that mass increase. Why the reasoning behind adding the negative effect?

This one's not even bad, though. Want bad? Look at the Armor Mass Reduction kit.

This time we have the same base Mark I Armor Panel:
230 Armor
188 Hitpoints
772 Mass

Let's make it with a Mark 1 Mass Reduction kit.
The Mass Reduction kit will allow for:
Pros:
An decrease in the Mass;
Cons:
A decrease in the Armor;
A decrease in the Hitpoints;
With skill tapes, you'll have 13 points to spend in these categories. In this case, I'll put 9 points in Mass to reduce it as much as I can and 4 points in Armor to try and mitigate the loss of Armor caused by this subcomponent.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
-39 Armor
-43 Hitpoints
-92 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
191 Armor
145 Hitpoints
680 Mass

I lost a mere 92 mass but lost 39 armor and 43 hitpoints.

Again, why? The part's still not overpowered with that mass decrease. Why the reasoning behind adding the negative effect?

And that's just a Mark I Armor panel. The difference really rears its ugly head at higher levels. Let's look...

A Mark IV Armor Panel (no subcomponent used) has a possible maximum stats of:
1576 Armor
1433 Hitpoints
10608 Mass (lowest is better)
This assumes you have perfect resources. Results can vary with resource quality obviously.

After building mine, I have 13 experimentation points to use. I spend 9 points on Armor, and 4 points on Mass to reduce that as much as possible, resulting in the following armor panel:
1576 Armor
1170 Hitpoints
12044 Mass

Not a bad armor panel overall for a Mark IV.

Now, let's make another one exactly the same, but let's make it with a Mark IV Armor Reinforcement Panel.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
+358 Armor
+292 Hitpoints
+1820 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
1934 Armor
1462 Hitpoints
13864 Mass

With the Mark I, the gain in Mass was slightly above the gain in Armor and Hitpoints combined (106 A+HP, 116 Mass).
Now, the gain in Mass is very disproportionate (650 A+HP, 1820 Mass). Again I ask, what's the reasoning behind it?

But hold on, it gets way worse.

Let's make it with a Mark IV Mass Reduction kit.

My subcomponent after experimentation has:
-241 Armor
-265 Hitpoints
-1434 Mass

Now I have an armor panel with these stats:
1335 Armor
904 Hitpoints
10609 Mass

You might think, not too shabby, right? Got the mass down to damned near the minimum it can get. But the hit to Armor and HP for not even a 2K drop in Mass? Wow.

And how about this...

If I made a Mark III Armor panel with a Reinforcement panel?
1215 Armor
991 Hitpoints
5553 Mass

The Mark IV with the mass reduction kit only has 120 more Armor, 87 LOWER HP, and over 5K MORE Mass than the Mark III with a Reinforcement Panel.

This holds true across the entire Mass Reduction kit line. The subcomponent is truly useless as it is.

Now, I can continue on with all the components and their subcomponents. Some of them are literally just as useless as the Mass Reduction kits and would be a waste of resouces even making them. But that would just be a LOT of typing for me and reading you don't wanna do.

For ones that are truly useless, like the Mass Reduction kits, I don't know an easy fix short of remove the negative aspects altogether. At least they may find a niche with some users.

At the very least, for all subcomponents for ship parts the negative aspects need to be removed. They don't serve a real purpose. If crafted SW parts were the end all/be all, they'd make sense but crafted is not end game gear.

juspar · Oct 20, 2021

Trade offs are forced choices. Choices are always good. They increase variety and engagement.

ThunderVamp · Oct 20, 2021

You're already making trade-offs even discounting the subcomponents altogether. Take a Booster. With a max SW suit, I can get 18 Exp points. But I have 7 different stats to choose from for experimenting (not counting the Armor and HP stats of the Booster). Then you're also making trade-offs in the choice of subcomponent used. The added negatives in each subcomponent aren't serving a purpose.

Sticking with Armor, I know that if I choose a Reinforcement Panel, I'm giving up a shot at lower mass. If I choose a Mass Reduction, I know I'm giving up a shot at a stronger panel.

Instead, if I choose a Reinforcement Panel, I'm not only giving up a shot at lower mass, I'm actually getting added mass and disproportionately so for the gain in armor or HP.

If I choose Mass Reduction I'm also LOSING Armor and HP from my base stats, with such a low decrease in mass that, at higher level parts, doesn't matter at all because the ships it fits in almost always have mass to spare.

And remember, this is just the Armor. There's still...
...Reactors and the multiple subcomponents available there to choose from, all with various trade-offs in their choice to begin with
...Engines and the multiple subcomponents available there to choose from, all with various trade-offs in their choice to begin with
...Boosters and the multiple subcomponents available there to choose from, all with various trade-offs in their choice to begin with
...Shields and the multiple subcomponents available there to choose from, all with various trade-offs in their choice to begin with
...Capacitors and the multiple subcomponents available there to choose from, all with various trade-offs in their choice to begin with
...Weapons and the multiple subcomponents available there to choose from, all with various trade-offs in their choice to begin with

It's like double-dipping in the trade-offs.

juspar · Oct 20, 2021

I guess you look at the choice being only between subcomponent a and subcomponent b. I consider the choice also includes no subcomponent. I think you have a point on the imbalance between trading off, for example, mass for armour value. But my stance on that would not be that the trade off mechanic was wrong, just the specific numbers need to be rebalanced. I maintain my down vote.

Narmy · Oct 20, 2021

I have to down vote this. At present stats for crafted space parts are garbo for a reason. The lack of resources that have spawned witht he stats needed to make the parts. its nothing to do with the parts/ The only item that has any concern is the lack of the engine overhaul which was introduced in the NGE but is not avaialable here . Having a a mostly crafted loadout here will make you a great PvE and end game content starter grade ship with only a reactor and sheild needed that is RE'd. The space endgame has always been the RE game as there is not much else to do once you have done the Nova Orion missions and that can be done in a mostly crafted adv xwing or defender

ThunderVamp · Oct 21, 2021

Narmy said:
At present stats for crafted space parts are garbo for a reason.

The stats I listed in my first post are not using resources spawned on the server. They are using calculators utilizing spawns that existed on live SWG/Bloodfin before it shut down. They are actual stats that I was able to produce regularly. The stats I list above are actual legit stats that could be produced by a SW that could hit the caps on crafted parts.

If you consider the stats I listed above "garbo" then you are kind of making the case here.

I'll attach the calculator used so you can verify the stats by even making up your own using capped resources if it'll help.

Narmy · Oct 21, 2021

Theres only one crafted part that needs some kinda change and that would be the mk4 collection Reactor which needs to be sorted out so you can get around 14kmass to 30k genrate from it. thenly subcomp we need is the engine overhaul and that will make a massive diffrence to Engines but other than that crafted parts as is are fine. It would seem that your proposal is because The SWG legends space commitee are pushing for crafted parts to be changed because a few people who have never played the game on live demand it because they cant be bothered to take the time to learn how to fly. If thats a factor in your reasoning and your listening to people over there then you need a reality check. The people pushing the changes have one goal and thas to make their krayts more overpowered than they already are.

ThunderVamp · Oct 21, 2021

I've never looked at legends or know anything about it. My proposal is because as a SW, even on old Live SWG and starting just a few weeks after CU launched and into NGE, there was a problem with SW subcomps essentially penalizing their use. I spoke out about this same issue back in 2007:

So...you want to be a shipwright? A Guide... - The SWGCraft Project

We had a whole thread about this issue on the SOE Shipwright forums (gone now) with advice to prospective SWs on which subs to absolutely avoid because of how bad they were.

Again, you are limited on experimentation points. You are already making trade-offs when you choose stats to spend points on but not others. You make a trade off when you select one subcomponent over another. You shouldn't also take a hit to a stat or stats for that choice. That was just a bad design decision when SOE built JTL.

If you can honestly say it's good design for a Mark IV Mass Reduction kit to make a Mark IV Armor panel an overall worse choice to use than a Mark III with an Armor Reinforcement Panel added because it still has double the mass but only 120 more armor, then I don't know what to tell you. Or if adding a Max Damage intensifier boosts your max damage but decreases your min damage to the point that the average between them is barely higher? That's not a problem?
Example:
Advanced Blaster (No sub):
Min Damage (10 points spent): 1711
Max Damage (8 points spent): 2594
Average: 2153

Advance Blaster (Max Damage sub):
Min Damage (10 points spent): 1576
Max Damage (8 points spent): 2877
Average: 2227

Congrats, it's an average of 74 higher

If the system had simply left the min damage alone, it would at least have had an average DPS of 2294. 141 higher on average.

How about use a min damage intensifier! That might close the gap for a better average, right? Wrong.
Advance Blaster (Min Damage sub):
Min Damage (10 points spent): 1894
Max Damage (8 points spent): 2406
Average: 2150

Congrats, it's 3 points LOWER on average than a blaster with no sub at all.

Spend the points so more is in max damage instead?
Advance Blaster (Min Damage sub):
Min Damage (8 points spent): 1860
Max Damage (10 points spent): 2458
Average: 2159

Congrats, it's a whopping 6 points higher on average than a blaster with no sub at all.

If the system had simply left the max damage alone, then after experiementing for min and max it would at least have had an average DPS of around 2244, depending on which stat you prioritized. 91 higher on average.

Neither of these changes would have made the weapon overpowered. Not even remotely.

In case your wondering, what about a Max Damage sub and only experiment for Max damage, not min damage to try and counter the penalty?
Advance Blaster (Max Damage sub):
Min Damage (0 points spent): 1408
Max Damage (10 points spent): 2929
Average: 2169 - 16 higher than no sub at all

if the system had simply left the min damage alone when choosing the max damage sub, it would have had an average of around 2236. 83 higher than no sub at all.

This is a problem with SW subcomponents. The point of the subcomponents is to try and improve a specific stat or stats among ALL of the stats a SW has to work with. Again, you're already making trade-offs just in choosing certain stats to spend points on and leaving others. You're making a trade off in selecting a specific subcomponent over another one. You shouldn't also be penalized for/by the subcomponent.

Nodens · Jan 4, 2023

I played a SW on EU-Chimaera and I also recreated him here now. This was a known issue back then and I searched today to see if anything had been done to fix the subcomponents so that I would start using them, thinking that what I knew from back then may actually not apply here on Resto so I'd been doing it wrong. But I found this PV thread instead. It seems like the system is the same with the majority of subcomponents being irrelevant and the few exceptions only usable for ships with very high mass.
Obviously the end game is all about RE, and that's cool, but fixing the flaw in the SW subcomponent parts would be nice so we could actually offer even more varied configurations of parts by utilizing them. I'm really surprised that this doesn't have more votes by SW players. I guess they must have abandoned the idea of them ever becoming useful?

SagoMactow · Jan 15, 2023

I played SWG since it went live and had a shipwright the moment they released JTL.

My observation (for the most part) is that hand crafted items are better than RE'd (except reactors) until you get to L9 and 10. Then RE'd components are better. The beauty of Shipwright is that you can make a component any number of ways.

Personally I want all low mass on all my components except shields, capacitor, and engine. Borstels are better than any crafted Level 10 weapon. Only RE'd components are better than a Borstel. But then again a RE'd L10 Weapon is going to have more mass and therefore more damage that a Borstel. So I guess it is all relative to your game play and ship you are flying.

In short my style of play is I will not reduce mass for items that keep me alive and in the fight (shields, capacitor, and engine). I am will to reduce mass on components that do not sustain a fight (armor, flight computer, boosters, ordinance, counter measures (Chaff works good enough for me at L10). Boosters are only good for escaping or shortening your flight time from point A to point B.

If your shields hold up, and capacitor recharges quickly, and your ship is fast and maneuverable ... you will survive.. Guns need to use minimal EPS so you don't drain the capacitor. Because your Capacitor recharges your shields.

It is all about sustainability.

Nodens · Jan 16, 2023

Not sure what you're trying to say/how your post relates to the subject of the PV at all? The point is that SW subcomponents for the most part don't make any sense to use in crafting, to the point of them being mostly useless (which is something you obviously know since you played SW since JTL launched, like I have), except some very niche scenarios (where the use of a worse overall component is doable--usually high mass ship related) and they need some kind of change/tweaking so that they're valid as customization options. Look at the math in the post above to understand what is being said here.

If not the removal of the penalties on them, as the initial proposal suggests (which is probably a bit drastic), the tuning of the values so that they are not so disproportionate and you don't end up with a worse overall component with than without the use of a subcomponent, is a good idea.

Search

Search

Open Space Artisan Shipwright Subcomponents

ThunderVamp

juspar

ThunderVamp

juspar

Narmy

ThunderVamp

Attachments

Narmy

ThunderVamp

Nodens

SagoMactow

Nodens