1. Updated the spreadsheet: merged the changes from @lovecraft0109 to show side-by-side comparisons with vanilla vs. modded stats (thank you thank you thank you), and added new columns for Crew Capacity, Magazine Size, Firing Mode, Recharge Rate, Recharge Delay, Targeting Mode Cost, and Crit Multiplier. 2. Rebalanced secondary stats, especially firing modes, recharging, magazine sizes, and crit. This is a first pass. 3. Revisited the cost of very early-game Class A weapons. Very early Class A weapons are now more expensive than I had made them originally. Costs for Class A weapons have been internally normalized for each category.
Updated spreadsheet is 50% done -- the vanilla values have been entered for extended weapon properties and values. I must admit that I was a little surprised: there's a lot more variance in the secondary numbers than would be expected, and the fact that those numbers aren't included in the visible weapon stats is quite frankly outrageous given how much of an impact they have on weapon selection. There are also some pretty obvious head-scratchers and errors left by Bethsoft (shocker) that I will plan on addressing once I have the new values entered fully. For example, the seemingly-useless Atlatl 290B launcher -- which requires Rank 4 Starship Design and uses a whopping 10 power -- not only deals less damage than comparable B-class launchers, but has an ammo count of only 4, like other B-class Atlatl launchers (other brands of B-class launchers all have more ammo), and costs more to fire in targeting mode than any other B-class launcher, costing as much as targeting a C-class launcher. The secondary numbers really paint a damning picture.
But also, those same secondary numbers highlight why other launchers might be useful. Sure, the Atlatl launchers have the best stats just based on damage and refire rate, but the Atlatl 280C -- which is the undisputed highest-on-paper-DPS of any missile launcher in vanilla -- only has 2 rounds of ammunition; compare that to the Devastator 1500, which has approximately 1/4th the paper DPS, but also has 4x the ammunition. That means you have more opportunities to fire before worrying about recharge, though given the fact that it has a 5s recharge means that by the time you've fired all your shots, the Atlatl launcher has probably finished reloading already, or is close. In any event, these secondary numbers are like another whole side to every weapon, and not including them in the visible stat blocks isn't just an oversight but an insult.
There are also some very unsurprising areas where there's a notable lack of variety, especially when it comes to missile weapons -- every vanilla Missile Launcher has a 15s recharge time and a 5s recharge delay, for example.
Anyway, I'll update again and share the new spreadsheet when it's finished. Thanks for your patience.
Apologies for the delays on this. IRL has been hectic the past couple of weeks. I probably won't be able to make much headway during the normal week but I'm going to double down this weekend and try to at least get the updated spreadsheet done.
The easier soltion would be to make lasers be great vs shields, ballistic vs hull, and particless the middle ground (as opposed to vanilla the best)
For example what I propose: laser weapon does 20shield and 5 hull damage, ballistic does 5 shield and 20 hull particle does 10 shield and 10 hull (instead of 20-20 like in vanilla)
Missiles should simply have +50% damage across the board cuz they just underperform in damage. They have range and lock feature already. Range it's fine as it is, if done what I described. That way particles will start shooting early but they won't do as much damage and when you close the distance you catch up with DPS with lasers and ballistics
I'll be giving this mod a shot this week, sounds great. I too am baffled at the seemingly random performance of the various vanilla weapons systems in relation to their price and class.
Questions...
You said you consider range to be a secondary stat, but I hope you did consider it an important factor for pricing and damage output? Player ships can outrun and kite NPCs pretty much at will so having a range advantage can be very useful.
I didn't see any remarks on turrets -- for this first pass did you pretty much treat turrets to the same changes you did fixed mount weapons? I like turrets on some ships but feel like maybe their range should be reduced to 75% of the equivalent fixed mount weapons.
As far as range is concerned, the only substantial changes were ballistic weapons having their ranges generally increased (increasing further for larger damage-per-shot weapons, since they'd have more kinetic energy), and for certain weapons to have their ranges decreased. However, I tried to make it so that weapons with shorter ranges generally had greater DPS, whether that meant increasing the per-shot damage or increasing the rate of fire.
Turrets were very much a "go with my gut" situation. In general, turrets are slightly more expensive than comparable fixed-fire weapons, but also weaker in terms of DPS. I also made turrets fire faster across the board as part of this calculus (which was taken into account for DPS calculations), so while most weapons saw a damage increase, turrets either got very modest increases or nerfs to go with the increased ROF. I was tempted to reduce turret ranges as well, but I wanted to play around with them for a while before deciding one way or the other.
Once you have a chance to play around with it, please give me any feedback! I only have so many hours in the week to test, and there are so many variables (levels, classes, questlines, difficulty sliders, etc) to account for...
After playing around with this a bit, I feel like particle beams are still the meta. Ballistics have great range but can't hurt shield easily. Lasers have terrible range so you have to get close to break the shields, and then your ballistic weapons' range advantage doesn't count for anything because you're in close to your opponent.
I tried using missiles as shield busters, but my lock-on range is too short to make use of the 4000 range of the missiles.
This was all Class A --- really the only option that makes sense for a low end class A ship is particle beams as soon as you can get them.
I'm going to poke around in the creation kit and see if there is a straightforward way of increasing target lock range. I've heard there are other mods that do it, so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Of course, if it's a single universal variable, this may make combat significantly more difficult if enemies can lock on and pepper you with missiles much sooner. I'm adding this to the roadmap for part of the 1.1 release.
Some feedback after playing with this for a couple days. I spent some time flying around Serpentis with three different ships and a lot of loadouts. I didn't do any serious controlled testing, just what I would use in my actual game. Settings: (Player Ship Damage: Hard, Enemy Ship Damage: Extreme, Level 130+, NG+10)
Almost all of my loadouts were either one manual two turret, or two manual one turret. I almost never go with three manual or three turret loadouts on ships. Overall I like it. Definitely better than vanilla in most respects. Going to keep this mod on unless something better comes along. *I'm not asking for any specific changes, these are just my observations and some opinion.
In general, I agree with the idea that C>B>A in terms of weapon strength, but it feels a bit too far in that direction right now. Here's two ideas I have that might help: 1. Starship Design 4 weapons should always be the best in class for their tier. Starship Design 3 weapons should be comparable to the low end of the next tier, and SD 4 weapons should be near the middle of the next tier, roughly on the level of a SD1 weapon of the next tier.
That would give the best Class A setups mid B tier firepower, and the best B setups mid C tier firepower, while going for max Piloting and Starship Design would still be needed for the strongest loadouts, but the delta between them would be a bit smoother. This would also make vanilla enemy ships a bit more threatening with their often anemic lower tier weapons loadouts.
Laser range could definitely use a boost across the board, especially now that kinetics have more. IMO it's largely pointless to have kinetics that significantly outrange lasers from a balance perspective. If realism is the concern, laser weapons would be effective in space far beyond the combat ranges in Starfield. Even modern lasers that operate in atmosphere have effective ranges believed to be out to 7-10km. Firing long range kinetics at shielded targets doesn't do much, and the only real anti-shield option at over 1500m is to load up on particle beams.
As for turrets, what if the firing arc was part of the balancing, based on what Starship Design level they require? Say, vanilla 90 degrees for the low end, 180 degrees for SD 2-3, and full 360 degree coverage for SD 4 turrets. Not saying the idea to make different versions with different coverage areas is bad, but this might be a bit better since it won't require making any new weapons, and adds clear progression through Starship Design.
Another idea that might be worth looking into is adding requirements by weapon skills for some high end weapons. For example, if the Jishaku AlNiCo Rapid Railgun is the best Class B ballistic weapon, it might need Starship Design 4, and Ballistic Weapons Systems 4. Maybe also consider increasing the maximum level that the best parts unlock at up to 100 or so. With the new game settings giving XP boosts, you hit level 60 relatively fast, and that leaves behind most ship weapons very early since you progress through unlocking them so fast. That might be outside the scope of what you're trying to do with this mod though.
Crew capacity is a minor issue with some weapons loadouts, particularly now that there are 6 power weapons, but you've already said that's going to be changed.
Suggestion: Add the magazine size for missiles and auto weapons to the new descriptions. I don't like that Bethesda made that a hidden stat, and that's a way to get it ingame without any UI editing.
Thank you for your feedback, and I will add some or all of these as milestones in the roadmap. Can't guarantee an ETA (especially if my day job keeps up with its current pace...), but I think a lot of these are very sensible.
Have you considered unlocking turret rotation to give them full 360 coverage? I never liked how we get turrets on circular mounts but they only have 90 degree firing arcs.
I have, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. If I gave them 360-degree coverage, I'd probably drop the damage a bit to compensate. Right now, having the turrets with limited firing arcs makes their placement a bit more tactical, and I like that. But I'll take it into consideration.
You can make them cost more power to have more wider range, and slower rate of fire to make up for the turning speeds.
you don't have to give full 360 degree turning too, it can be 120, 180, 240 degrees which is a very wide coverage for turrets.
Different 'profiles' could have limited range as well, so a 360 degree turret might have the shortest range to cover, but you can tactically build your ship so that frontal turrets have the more narrower range of 30-50 degrees, to shoot targets you are shooting at a much further distance.
You could possibly add new variants in as well, like the 360 degree "cutting" laser that does very low damage of 1~4, but has a rate of fire like 20, range of 500m. So it will beam the nearest target and drain the shields actively, but do little to zero damage to hulls.
I think I'm going to add turret modifications to the roadmap. My gut's telling me that having 3 different classes of turrets would make sense: one with 90 degree coverage, one with 180 degree coverage (current), and one with 360 degree coverage. Damage and range would decrease as coverage increases.
That being said, adding new modules is definitely a lower priority, and due to the relatively small number of turrets that are available in-game, I don't think that modifying existing modules to offer these kinds of choices would make sense. So I'll revisit the idea in a future release.
Looks great! Really comprehensive balance pass on ship weapons which is definitely needed. I'm giving this a try this week and pairing it with Improved Enemy Ship AI.
Couple notes on some conflicts for anyone interested:
Conflicts with NASAPunk - primarily in the costs of the weapons & removal of perk requirements to purchase. Load order will determine which mod wins this conflict so no patch should be needed.
Conflicts with Starfield Community Patch. SFCP appears to have implemented some (all?) of the changes from Ship Weapon Fixes which makes some strange choices on certain weapons:
Changes the max power of the Atlatl 290B to be '6' which seems to put the weapon into a more sensible balance with respect to the rest of the existing weapons. [00228D4A] - Reported by JaeDL - Contributed by GrizBane - Mod Page
I personally think SFCP has it wrong on this one and shouldn't have added most of these changes in the first place. Most aren't "fixes" but subjective tweaks and honestly outside of the scope of what the community patch should be doing. Recommend loading this mod after SFCP (which should be happening anyway).
One thing that stood out to me in the description; you may have nerfed particle weapons too much: - increased price - increased power - yet you say that they should be worse than a laser and ballistic combo.
I think that particle weapons should be expensive and power hungry, but better than laser+ballistic combo otherwise there'd be no reason to use them. You're paying more so it makes sense for it to be better.
An additional idea is that you could have all particle weapons require a spaceship design perk or a particle weapon perk so people don't just buy them early game.
So the upshot of these changes, which I didn't note in the overall description, is that weapon damage was (slightly) increased across the board. Particle weapons did benefit from this as well. Overall, the damage output from PBWs should be slightly lower than comparable Ballstic+Laser combos at full power. However, they make up for it by having generally longer range, so it's not like they have no advantages.
Also -- specializing in PBWs means that you only have to max one skill, instead of having to max 2 (or 2 vs 3, if you include turrets) to maximize your damage output, so that's another intrinsic advantage that they have over Lasers and Ballistics. In any event, I tried to make my edits holistically and also taking into account what seemed right at the time. But I'm eager to hear people's feedback, so if you have thoughts after playing please let me know!
Just wanted to point out that another nerf on particle beam loadouts here is crew size. I haven't examined every weapon yet, but the particle beams I generally use lost one weapon on a 12 power setup, and each individual weapon provides crew capacity. It's going to be a bit easier to fill out a large crew with 2 power laser/ballistic options than 3-4 power beams.
That's a great point re: crew sizing, and one I didn't consider. I'm going to increase crew cap across the board for particle weapons as part of my first revision, sometime before the end of the week.
The argument that particle weapons should be better than a laser/ballistics combo, otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to use them, does not make sense. It's the contrary. Why use two weapon types in combo (with different and lower ranges and, actually in reality, more difficult logistics etc.) if one weapon type were better than the combo?
I simply halved the fire rate of all particle weapons in my game, to get them into line, because in vanilla the ship weapon design is an insult to the logic. I'm playing with 1/5 of vanilla ship speed however, so range is very important and I let particle weapons have their unfair range advantage.
I'm considering to try the mod, although I have some problems with the range changes. I think ballistics should have low range but fire much faster than laser and particle beam weapons which would stress the reactor a lot with high fire rates.
To crew size, is there really someone who wants a lot of people on your ship, constantly blocking your way most of the time? Do you need them? My last ship in my last playthrough, a C class one-hab midget (with 6 cannons, 4 lasers, 3 missile launchers and even a toilet), had only two crew stations and could prevail on Extreme damage settings.
@geala -- I had thought, initially, to severely reduce the range of lasers and particles across the board and increase the range of ballistics. The rationale was one of "science", namely that lasers are going to rely on focal distance and be very ineffective outside of that, particle weapons are going to have some sort of dispersion as the blob of particles loses cohesion (particle weapons are of course the least grounded in modern physics, but that's just my interpretation), but ballistics are just kinetic projectiles and they should continue unabated through space until they hit something. I decided to let particle weapons keep their long range as a consolation prize for being slightly less effective than the laser/ballistic combo and for having their power draw increased. But realistically, ballistic weapons should have an infinite range -- if we had ballistic weapons like "ship shotguns" or similar, then obviously they'd lose effectiveness due to dispersal as range increased.
It's pretty easy to miss. Nothing tells you that weapon is special and it appears on exactly one vanilla ship, a model that I'm pretty sure never normally spawns as hostile.
And this also highlights a missed opportunity from Bethesda -- if they bothered to fill out the descriptions per item, they might actually flag things that are interesting. Like a space shotgun. The Mauler 106S's vanilla stats make it clearly better than the 106T, but the Jishaku Fe Railgun, which is also available at level 16 and doesn't require Starship Design 4, has higher DPS and longer range. So they buried a unique and interesting weapon in the middle of Class B Ballistic weapons with nothing to show for it, and if you decided early on to opt for PBWs or the Vanguard Hellfire Autocannon, you'd have no reason to look at the 106S based on stats alone.
Now that I see how to make ballistic weapons into shotguns, I think I'm also going to modify a couple more. Maybe one for each Class. Always looking to make things interesting. Hell, maybe I'll see if I can make a particle shotgun...
This article was written with a translator, so please forgive any awkward wording.
While the creator has provided us with a list of ship part stats after the changes, and a link to a sheet with stats from the vanilla game before the changes, I thought it would be nice to have a more at-a-glance comparison.
In the BSM row, blue means buffed, and orange means nerfed. (I feel like red would be a more appropriate color for the nerf, but I'm a color weakness person, and orange and black are easier to distinguish than red and black, so I went with orange.)
And for “Full Value”, I wasn't sure what it meant, so I changed it so that the “Full Value” value divided by the “Individual Value” value also applies to the vanilla numbers.
I've been staring at my monitor for hours and my eyes and head have been going back and forth, so I may have missed something.
I've seen a lot of games where these balance tweaks have definitely made the game experience richer than it already was, and I'm looking forward to seeing what other modules you create in the future.
This is amazing. Thank you! Do you mind if I merge these changes into my spreadsheet? I am planning on updating the sheet with full weapon stats -- crew capacity, magazine size, firing mode, recharge rate, recharge delay, targeting mode cost, etc. -- and being able to see all of those changes at a glance would be ideal.
(Also: "Full Value" is the cost of a full spread of that weapon, so 6x cost for a weapon with a power draw of 2, 4x cost for a weapon with a power draw of 3, etc.)
I've just unprotected the sheet, so make a copy and tweak it to your heart's content. What I did was pretty crude, so it might be better to re-frame it.
And the "Full Value" was to match the power limit of the ship's armament, which is '12' - that makes sense now. I didn't know because I was only playing the first part of the game, testing the mods I had installed.
By the way, sorry to ask another question, but does that mean that 'Value' is the currency used in Starfield, i.e. 'Credits'? Or is it some kind of arbitrary 'stat' that the creators came up with?
Because I thought it was credits, and I had filled in the existing credit figures in the 'Vanilla' row.
Thanks again for the awesome mod. I don't know what time it is over there, but have a nice day.
29 comments
1. Updated the spreadsheet: merged the changes from @lovecraft0109 to show side-by-side comparisons with vanilla vs. modded stats (thank you thank you thank you), and added new columns for Crew Capacity, Magazine Size, Firing Mode, Recharge Rate, Recharge Delay, Targeting Mode Cost, and Crit Multiplier.
2. Rebalanced secondary stats, especially firing modes, recharging, magazine sizes, and crit. This is a first pass.
3. Revisited the cost of very early-game Class A weapons. Very early Class A weapons are now more expensive than I had made them originally. Costs for Class A weapons have been internally normalized for each category.
But also, those same secondary numbers highlight why other launchers might be useful. Sure, the Atlatl launchers have the best stats just based on damage and refire rate, but the Atlatl 280C -- which is the undisputed highest-on-paper-DPS of any missile launcher in vanilla -- only has 2 rounds of ammunition; compare that to the Devastator 1500, which has approximately 1/4th the paper DPS, but also has 4x the ammunition. That means you have more opportunities to fire before worrying about recharge, though given the fact that it has a 5s recharge means that by the time you've fired all your shots, the Atlatl launcher has probably finished reloading already, or is close. In any event, these secondary numbers are like another whole side to every weapon, and not including them in the visible stat blocks isn't just an oversight but an insult.
There are also some very unsurprising areas where there's a notable lack of variety, especially when it comes to missile weapons -- every vanilla Missile Launcher has a 15s recharge time and a 5s recharge delay, for example.
Anyway, I'll update again and share the new spreadsheet when it's finished. Thanks for your patience.
For example what I propose:
laser weapon does 20shield and 5 hull damage,
ballistic does 5 shield and 20 hull
particle does 10 shield and 10 hull (instead of 20-20 like in vanilla)
Missiles should simply have +50% damage across the board cuz they just underperform in damage. They have range and lock feature already.
Range it's fine as it is, if done what I described. That way particles will start shooting early but they won't do as much damage and when you close the distance you catch up with DPS with lasers and ballistics
Questions...
Thanks for the mod!
Turrets were very much a "go with my gut" situation. In general, turrets are slightly more expensive than comparable fixed-fire weapons, but also weaker in terms of DPS. I also made turrets fire faster across the board as part of this calculus (which was taken into account for DPS calculations), so while most weapons saw a damage increase, turrets either got very modest increases or nerfs to go with the increased ROF. I was tempted to reduce turret ranges as well, but I wanted to play around with them for a while before deciding one way or the other.
Once you have a chance to play around with it, please give me any feedback! I only have so many hours in the week to test, and there are so many variables (levels, classes, questlines, difficulty sliders, etc) to account for...
Ballistics have great range but can't hurt shield easily.
Lasers have terrible range so you have to get close to break the shields, and then your ballistic weapons' range advantage doesn't count for anything because you're in close to your opponent.
I tried using missiles as shield busters, but my lock-on range is too short to make use of the 4000 range of the missiles.
This was all Class A --- really the only option that makes sense for a low end class A ship is particle beams as soon as you can get them.
Almost all of my loadouts were either one manual two turret, or two manual one turret. I almost never go with three manual or three turret loadouts on ships.
Overall I like it. Definitely better than vanilla in most respects. Going to keep this mod on unless something better comes along. *I'm not asking for any specific changes, these are just my observations and some opinion.
In general, I agree with the idea that C>B>A in terms of weapon strength, but it feels a bit too far in that direction right now. Here's two ideas I have that might help: 1. Starship Design 4 weapons should always be the best in class for their tier. Starship Design 3 weapons should be comparable to the low end of the next tier, and SD 4 weapons should be near the middle of the next tier, roughly on the level of a SD1 weapon of the next tier.
That would give the best Class A setups mid B tier firepower, and the best B setups mid C tier firepower, while going for max Piloting and Starship Design would still be needed for the strongest loadouts, but the delta between them would be a bit smoother. This would also make vanilla enemy ships a bit more threatening with their often anemic lower tier weapons loadouts.
Laser range could definitely use a boost across the board, especially now that kinetics have more. IMO it's largely pointless to have kinetics that significantly outrange lasers from a balance perspective. If realism is the concern, laser weapons would be effective in space far beyond the combat ranges in Starfield. Even modern lasers that operate in atmosphere have effective ranges believed to be out to 7-10km. Firing long range kinetics at shielded targets doesn't do much, and the only real anti-shield option at over 1500m is to load up on particle beams.
As for turrets, what if the firing arc was part of the balancing, based on what Starship Design level they require? Say, vanilla 90 degrees for the low end, 180 degrees for SD 2-3, and full 360 degree coverage for SD 4 turrets. Not saying the idea to make different versions with different coverage areas is bad, but this might be a bit better since it won't require making any new weapons, and adds clear progression through Starship Design.
Another idea that might be worth looking into is adding requirements by weapon skills for some high end weapons. For example, if the Jishaku AlNiCo Rapid Railgun is the best Class B ballistic weapon, it might need Starship Design 4, and Ballistic Weapons Systems 4. Maybe also consider increasing the maximum level that the best parts unlock at up to 100 or so. With the new game settings giving XP boosts, you hit level 60 relatively fast, and that leaves behind most ship weapons very early since you progress through unlocking them so fast. That might be outside the scope of what you're trying to do with this mod though.
Crew capacity is a minor issue with some weapons loadouts, particularly now that there are 6 power weapons, but you've already said that's going to be changed.
Suggestion: Add the magazine size for missiles and auto weapons to the new descriptions. I don't like that Bethesda made that a hidden stat, and that's a way to get it ingame without any UI editing.
you don't have to give full 360 degree turning too, it can be 120, 180, 240 degrees which is a very wide coverage for turrets.
Different 'profiles' could have limited range as well, so a 360 degree turret might have the shortest range to cover, but you can tactically build your ship so that frontal turrets have the more narrower range of 30-50 degrees, to shoot targets you are shooting at a much further distance.
You could possibly add new variants in as well, like the 360 degree "cutting" laser that does very low damage of 1~4, but has a rate of fire like 20, range of 500m.
So it will beam the nearest target and drain the shields actively, but do little to zero damage to hulls.
That being said, adding new modules is definitely a lower priority, and due to the relatively small number of turrets that are available in-game, I don't think that modifying existing modules to offer these kinds of choices would make sense. So I'll revisit the idea in a future release.
Couple notes on some conflicts for anyone interested:
Conflicts with NASAPunk - primarily in the costs of the weapons & removal of perk requirements to purchase. Load order will determine which mod wins this conflict so no patch should be needed.
Conflicts with Starfield Community Patch. SFCP appears to have implemented some (all?) of the changes from Ship Weapon Fixes which makes some strange choices on certain weapons:
I personally think SFCP has it wrong on this one and shouldn't have added most of these changes in the first place. Most aren't "fixes" but subjective tweaks and honestly outside of the scope of what the community patch should be doing. Recommend loading this mod after SFCP (which should be happening anyway).
One thing that stood out to me in the description; you may have nerfed particle weapons too much:
- increased price
- increased power
- yet you say that they should be worse than a laser and ballistic combo.
I think that particle weapons should be expensive and power hungry, but better than laser+ballistic combo otherwise there'd be no reason to use them.
You're paying more so it makes sense for it to be better.
An additional idea is that you could have all particle weapons require a spaceship design perk or a particle weapon perk so people don't just buy them early game.
Also -- specializing in PBWs means that you only have to max one skill, instead of having to max 2 (or 2 vs 3, if you include turrets) to maximize your damage output, so that's another intrinsic advantage that they have over Lasers and Ballistics. In any event, I tried to make my edits holistically and also taking into account what seemed right at the time. But I'm eager to hear people's feedback, so if you have thoughts after playing please let me know!
I simply halved the fire rate of all particle weapons in my game, to get them into line, because in vanilla the ship weapon design is an insult to the logic. I'm playing with 1/5 of vanilla ship speed however, so range is very important and I let particle weapons have their unfair range advantage.
I'm considering to try the mod, although I have some problems with the range changes. I think ballistics should have low range but fire much faster than laser and particle beam weapons which would stress the reactor a lot with high fire rates.
To crew size, is there really someone who wants a lot of people on your ship, constantly blocking your way most of the time? Do you need them? My last ship in my last playthrough, a C class one-hab midget (with 6 cannons, 4 lasers, 3 missile launchers and even a toilet), had only two crew stations and could prevail on Extreme damage settings.
Now that I see how to make ballistic weapons into shotguns, I think I'm also going to modify a couple more. Maybe one for each Class. Always looking to make things interesting. Hell, maybe I'll see if I can make a particle shotgun...
This article was written with a translator, so please forgive any awkward wording.
While the creator has provided us with a list of ship part stats after the changes, and a link to a sheet with stats from the vanilla game before the changes,
I thought it would be nice to have a more at-a-glance comparison.
240910│PUBLIC Starfield Ship Weapon Rebalancing 1.0│Compared to the Vanilla game
In the BSM row, blue means buffed, and orange means nerfed. (I feel like red would be a more appropriate color for the nerf, but I'm a color weakness person, and orange and black are easier to distinguish than red and black, so I went with orange.)
And for “Full Value”, I wasn't sure what it meant, so I changed it so that the “Full Value” value divided by the “Individual Value” value also applies to the vanilla numbers.
I've been staring at my monitor for hours and my eyes and head have been going back and forth, so I may have missed something.
I've seen a lot of games where these balance tweaks have definitely made the game experience richer than it already was, and I'm looking forward to seeing what other modules you create in the future.
Thank you.
(Also: "Full Value" is the cost of a full spread of that weapon, so 6x cost for a weapon with a power draw of 2, 4x cost for a weapon with a power draw of 3, etc.)
I've just unprotected the sheet, so make a copy and tweak it to your heart's content.
What I did was pretty crude, so it might be better to re-frame it.
And the "Full Value" was to match the power limit of the ship's armament, which is '12' - that makes sense now.
I didn't know because I was only playing the first part of the game, testing the mods I had installed.
By the way, sorry to ask another question, but does that mean that 'Value' is the currency used in Starfield, i.e. 'Credits'? Or is it some kind of arbitrary 'stat' that the creators came up with?
Because I thought it was credits, and I had filled in the existing credit figures in the 'Vanilla' row.
Thanks again for the awesome mod. I don't know what time it is over there, but have a nice day.