|
|
本帖最后由 八云梦 于 2023-12-24 21:58 编辑
前排提醒：已根据0.5a版本进行全面重写，同时为方便阅读会在大部分段落后附上英文翻译（会用机翻参考，因为我水平也不怎么样）
Reminder: It has been completely rewritten according to version 0.5a, and English translation will be attached for most of the paragraphs to facilitate reading (I will use the machine for reference, because I am not good at it)
记住了，这是个还在调整中的mod，请各位进行评价的时候分清楚“判断强度”和“号召整体平衡”的细微差别
Remember, this is a mod that is still being adjusted, so please be clear about the subtle difference between "judging strength" and "calling for overall balance" when evaluating.
不过由于使用的是没有中文化的版本，所以舰船名与武器名我大概不会附上中文翻译（主要是因为懒）如果翻译者看到觉得难受的话可以提出，或者我过段时间再补充。
However, due to the use of a non-Chinese version, so the ship name and weapon name I probably will not attach a Chinese translation (mainly because of laziness) if the translator feels uncomfortable, you can ask, or I will add later.
舰船 Ships
主要强度集中在战术系统上，很久之前就有人做到过利用类似的战术系统对付某些超高难度的敌人的伟大事迹，考虑到实际战斗力中型能量武器发挥可能远不如导弹，相对17部署点来说其实设计还算是比较单纯的。实际在使用上也就是单纯的相位船只。
The main strength is concentrated on the tactical system, a long time ago, some people have done the use of similar tactical systems to deal with some ultra-difficult enemies of the great story, considering the actual combat effectiveness of medium energy weapons may be far less than the missile, relative to 17 deployment points in fact, the design is relatively simple. The actual use is a simple phase vessel.
|
老帖子中就已经提到过的问题，2个大导弹槽位对于24部署点（甚至他还有2个可以自由选择的飞行甲板槽位）实在有些过于廉价（除非你想和某个还额外拥有2个大型武器槽位的改造船对比），况且新插件会一定程度上填上这些慢速笨重船只机动性的空缺，这也是mod本身存在的主要问题之一——飞行甲板在大多数情况下其实是很珍贵的东西，尤其在原版战机LPC就已经比较强力的当下。能够随意的堆积起甲板数目绝对不会是一件好事，看看隔壁某个连一点新船新武器都没有的mod光凭原版内容就能凑出的航空大队对普通玩家有多棘手吧。
As mentioned in the previous post, 2 large missile slots are too cheap for 24 deployment points (even he has 2 optional flight deck slots)(Unless you want to be compared to a modified ship with two extra large weapon slots), and the new plugin will fill in some of the gaps in the maneuverability of these slow, heavy ships. This is one of the main problems with the mod itself - the flight deck is actually a precious thing in most cases, especially now that the original LPC is already quite powerful. Being able to pile up the number of decks at will is never a good thing, look next door to a mod that doesn't even have a single new ship or new weapon and can only use the original content to assemble an air force for the average player how difficult it is.
|
应该不用评价什么，非得说就是好设计，至于为什么，我贴个图就行
I don't need to comment, I just need to say it's good design, why？just see.
|
标准的高科战舰思路，但是60速度与高科内相对平庸的电网可能会使得这船的强度在看到的第一眼时有些扭曲。而且另外的就是比较平庸，没有特点，也许未来会有其他战术系统设计的时候感官能好上许多（虽然这个评价是相对于同mod里的其他舰船设计来说的）
Standard high-tech warship idea, but 60 speed and high-tech's relatively mediocre electrical grid may make this ship's strength slightly distorted at first sight. And the other is more mediocre, no features, maybe in the future when other tactical system design will be much better sensory (although this evaluation is relative to other ship design in the same mod)
|
老问题，单大槽对于一艘有40部署点的脆皮高科战舰来说有些过分，虽说战术系统在大部分时候的发挥会相当有效，但是为了mod内观感可能需要考虑给其其他方面加上一些长处，比方说机动性上把缺少的5点航速补上然后把盾效加强到0.7，否则很可能被各类无人船改造活活压在下面。
As usual, a single big slot is too much for a brittle, high-tech ship with 40 deployment points, although the tactical system will be quite effective most of the time, it may be necessary to consider adding some advantages to other aspects of it for mod look, such as making up the missing 5 points in maneuverability and increasing the shield effect to 0.7. Otherwise, it is likely to be crushed alive under the transformation of various unmanned ships.
|
复合式战术系统的强度玩过其他mod的大概都能明白，至少有趣。但是和上面那位一样。40dp单能量可能有些太……草率了。当然也不是说就得塞一大堆大型武器槽位，至少能给几个小型武器槽位应该都能让观感好上很多。
The strength of the compound tactical system has probably been understood by those who have played other mods, or at least interesting. But it's the same as the one above. 40dp singles large slot might be a little ... sloppy. That doesn't mean you have to cram in a bunch of big weapon slots, but at least a couple of small weapons slots would make it look a lot better.
|
相对部署点来说槽位没太多麻烦，反而是，美术上的问题？大槽位之间的距离实在是太近了，舰船中部与尾部宽一些视觉上会舒服很多，至少不至于像现在这样看起来会有些……扭曲，总的来说还需要调整。
Slots are less of a problem than deployment points, but more of an art problem, you know? The big slots are so close together that a wider midship and a wider stern would be visually more comfortable, at least not as much as it looks now... Distortions, in general, need to be adjusted.
|
设计思路大致相同于是就拉出来一起说（其他被默认隐藏的舰体就不在此贴出，其他读者有需求可以自己下载mod查看)
总的来讲，以这艘船为主的一系列为EVP内容准备的设计，都存在着很严重的强度超标。在对类似舰船进行设计的时候尽量还是多考虑，如果允许拥有无人舰队技能的玩家进行打捞的话，强度很可能变成玩家能够单方面屠杀所有敌方舰队，就像现在这个槽位安排的强度一样。更何况0.5a已经移除了先前的CR限制，在废船舰队与辅助学说两个技能的辅助下，它们真的可以10几部署塞满整个舰队。
而另一方面则是对导弹武器应当拥有一些……敬畏，尤其新版本存在DEM（至少在中国社区来说，DEM是原版强度顶点的认知已经是绝大部分人的共识）这种环境破坏者。
不过除去明显大手大脚的设计之外其他几位可能反而稍显……平庸，不过这里也只是在聊强度如何考量而不是平衡具体长什么样子，太激进的设计大可以之后再讨论和修改，在这个制作阶段还是点子更值得关注。
The design idea is roughly the same, so it is pulled out together to say (other ships that are hidden by default are not posted here, other readers can download the mod to see their needs)
In general, a series of designs based on this ship for EVP content are very serious. As much as possible when designing similar ships, if players with drone fleet skills are allowed to salvage, the intensity is likely to become the player can unilaterally slaughter the entire enemy fleet, like the intensity of the current slot arrangement. What's more, the 0.5a has removed the previous CR limitation, and with the help of the two skills of scrap fleet and auxiliary doctrine, they can really fill the entire fleet with 10 or more deployments.
On the other hand, missile weapons should have some... Awe, especially the new version of the existence of DEM (at least in the Chinese community, DEM is the culmination of the original intensity of the cognition has been the consensus of the vast majority of people) this environmental destroyer.
But despite the obvious extravagant design, a few others may be slightly more... Mediocre, but here is just talking about how to consider the strength rather than balance the specific look, too radical design can be discussed and modified later, in this production stage or the idea is more worthy of attention.
|
和前面讨论过的一样，飞行甲板实在是太廉价了，可以尝试通过内置LPC来降低可能会出现的强度问题。不过除了这个最明显的麻烦之外还有别的。
两个多出来的插件本身带有的价值被大幅度忽略了，我们且不提在高压的战斗中点防御到底多重要（这个你得去怪原版的某个大槽位武器），测距器本身的高装配点数需求是有原因的，可能需要在部署点上进行一定程度调整不然就会和上面变成同样的结果，我更推荐把部署点惩罚直接内置到宏观的插件加成之内，也方便未来的数据整合。
As discussed earlier, the flight deck is too cheap, and you can try to reduce the strength problems that may occur by building in the LPC. But there are other problems besides the most obvious one.
The value of the two extra plug-ins themselves has been largely ignored, let's not mention how important the point defense is in the high-pressure battle (this you have to blame the original version of a large slot weapon), the rangefinder itself has a high assembly point demand for a reason, may need to be adjusted to a certain extent at the deployment point otherwise it will become the same result as above. I also recommend that the deployment point penalty be built directly into the macro plugin bonus to facilitate future data integration.
|
武器 Weapens
根据槽位种类决定武器加成的点子其实非常有趣，我甚至可以想到作者可能考虑过根据具体武器类型的不同去安排舰船的默认装配，以此突出势力的背景设定与故事，但从开发角度来说，我更推荐你不要用这种方法作为武器的“主要设定”，你可以让其根据槽位获得一些不痛不痒的加成，但是最好不要让槽位直接决定了武器的工作能力。
然后从武器数据上来说，显然有一种，幅能伤害比过敏的感觉，很可能是为了限制本来就比较高的输出能力才如此考虑的，但相对明显过激的装配点安排来看不如单纯的用整体削弱再考量强度——注意我说的不是直接砍掉槽位上的额外加成，只是不要让这部分变成武器数据的核心要素。否则下面这1200射程的武器改动就会再来一遍。
The idea of a weapon bonus depending on the type of slot is interesting, and I can even imagine that the author may have considered the default assembly of the ship depending on the type of weapon, in order to highlight the setting and story of the forces, but from a development perspective, I would recommend that you not use this method as the "main setting" of the weapon. You can let it get some modest bonuses based on the slot, but it's best not to let the slot directly determine the ability of the weapon to work.
Then from the weapon data, there is obviously a feeling that the amplitude damage ratio is allergic, which is likely to be considered in order to limit the already relatively high output capacity, but the relatively obvious and excessive assembly point arrangement is not as good as simply using the overall weakening to consider the intensity - note that I am not talking about directly cutting the extra bonus on the slot. Just don't let it become the core element of the weapons data. Otherwise, the following 1200-range weapon changes will be repeated.
|
紧接着上面提到的被削弱到无人问津的远距离武器，不建议任何程度的直接对武器伤害类型进行改动，因为他一般不会是简单的从A变成B，而是从25%变成50%或200%，这相当不利于调整武器数据。另一边，用高dps去进行面板欺骗实际是可行的，但是一般来说幅能伤害比就不应当如此考虑——原版的中距离动能武器就大多是节约幅能的，你没有理由与他不同，除非你认为这么做会导致一种“反一切”的武器被创造出来，不过显然现在还没有。
而至于功能性武器，我认为你大可不必如此畏手畏脚，简而言之相对于这个高额的装配点本身就是“针对”的代价，另外就是考虑变成持续照射然后添加一个效果上限。
Following on from the above mentioned long range weapons that have been weakened to the point of no interest, it is not recommended that any degree of direct change to the weapon damage type be made, as it usually does not simply change from A to B, but from 25% to 50% or 200%, which is quite detrimental to adjusting the weapon data. On the other hand, using high dps for panel deception is actually feasible, but in general, the flux damage ratio should not be considered in this way - the original mid-range kinetic weapons were mostly flux saving, and there is no reason to be different, unless you think that this will lead to the creation of an "anti-everything" weapon, which clearly hasn't been done yet.
As for functional weapons, I don't think you need to be so afraid, in short, relative to this high assembly point itself is the cost of "targeting", the other is to consider becoming continuous irradiation and then adding an effect cap.
|
没有其他图，也没什么必要，其他阅读者只需要知道很扭曲就行）
唯一举个例子，原版中的某个“护航战机”已经靠着600动能dps砸爆了原本的一切战机讨论几乎变成了版本唯一，而蓝定位+值得7装配点才能使用的动能武器怎么看都显得太过分了一些）不过我觉得这也不需要我念叨，社区中肯定也会有人说的）
No more graphics, no need, other readers just need to know that it's distorted.) Only one example, one of the "escort fighters" in the original has destroyed all the original fighters with 600 kinetic dps. The Blue positioning + is worth 7 assembly points to use the kinetic weapon is too much to look at)
but I don't think I need to say this, the community will certainly say it)
|
大概就这样，有语言不通顺（大概是我没看出ai翻译的错误）以及专用词语错用的位置我看到就会进行修正，同时这篇帖子有时间的话我也会进行维护与词条的增减。欢迎提出各种建议或者疑问。
Probably so, there are language is not smooth (probably I did not see the ai translation error) and the wrong use of special words I will see the position will be corrected, at the same time, if this post has time, I will also carry out maintenance and increase or decrease the entry. Any suggestions or questions are welcome.
感谢你的阅读
Thanks for your reading.
|
|
发表于 2023-12-23 21:49:30
发表于 2023-12-24 13:11:41
