Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vayra]

like back to the future, get it


anyway all these new people keep going "wwwhy low tech suck" "loww tech suck" " why low tehc call low tech if it not suck"

and i mean they're wrong it's the best tech

that's why it should be called MASTER ERA
and then midline can be CORERA because tehy use core in pegasus maneuvering jets or kite or somethign and hi ghtecn can be EXPANSIONBERA ecause that's what they do when you shoot them with ballistics from your mastery era battleship; they expand rapidly in a cloud of debris and frozen atmosphere.

this is a completely original idea and has never been in starsector before

(also have you considered changing the name of hte game to "star farer" i think it has a nice ring to it)

thanks for listening bye

[Vayra]

This was kind of a shitpost but I do think that the Low Tech/Midline/High Tech series is confusing to a bunch of new players. There's something to be said for the transparency, but I wonder if an alternate naming system might be more immediately readable - if not the old Domain epochs, then maybe manufacturers, or design schools?

[Alex]

kind of

No no no definitely not kind of

[SCC]

While Mastery, Core and Expansion naming isn't official anymore, it would still be better than what's currently. Tech level naming has the issue of people assuming that low tech is bad and high tech is good (for individual ships, yes. For fleets, which is what Starsector is about, it's more complicated), when it's not true and possibly detrimental to the gameplay. I don't expect manufacturers to be used, but maybe something like classic/transitional/experimental could do.

[Grievous69]

Reading the first post made me feel like I'm on r/okbuddyretard.

For the actual topic, it kinda makes sense since high-tech ships are more expensive and have better stats than others (except hp of course). I wouldn't be against changing it but don't really see the point since it goes so far back, and honestly I haven't seen that many new players claim low tech is poo poo.

[Igncom1]

Low tech best tech because unlike the others you can actually reliably get weapons for their ships, unlike with high tech where you have to rely on some terrible terrible energy loadouts.

But for all I know the lowtech-midline-hightech progression could have been over 60 or so years sorta like in our world. So it's not like those old dreads armed with modern weapons are any worse for wear. If anything the modern lowtech is better then it used to be because now they all have energy shields, which didn't exist back then.

[Megas]

Even if low-tech/midline/high-tech seem cheesy, they work.  Low-tech has that rugged, simple but effective feel and style.  Midline has sleek angular space wedges or blocks with bullets and laser beams.  High-tech has fancy and curvy blue saucers or pimples that rely too much on energy and fancy tricks.  Phase ships with their dark and purple I, T, and X shapes feel like a completely different faction from conventional high-tech, more like its own style or a mod faction.

It probably would be harder for me to remember which of the Mastery/Core/Expansion from the Starfarer days go to which epoch.  Without reading lore, I would probably guess Core is low-tech, Expansion for midline, and Mastery for high-tech.  Not Mastery for low, Core for mid, and Expansion for high.

[Harmful Mechanic]

I genuinely think the Mastery Era/Core Epoch/Expansion Era terminology is best and the most flavorful, but I also like it more because Megas doesn't like it.

[Megas]

I did not say I did not like the Mastery/Core/Expansion.  All I did was point out that low-tech/midline/high-tech are probably easier to work with or understand, even if it is a bit blunt and less sophisticated.

[Harmful Mechanic]

It's possible my posts in this thread are not wholly serious.

[MesoTroniK]

It never quite made sense to me having the tech levels be low, mid and high, while all being competitive. So yes the old style naming would at the least be clearer to new players, and just make a bit more sense in general.

[Althaea]

Well, the low-tech/midline/high-tech naming scheme does have the advantage of being evocative and easy to remember, which is why it was widely used by the community in previous patches. The ships look and feel the part, even if technically they're all part of the same tech-level. (For "true" low-tech, you have to look at Derelicts, not Enforcers or Onslaughts or even Hounds. And even Derelicts often have access to weapons they theoretically really shouldn't have, like advanced torpedoes.)

I really wouldn't mind if at least the Blueprint packages were renamed according to the old scheme, though. And even if low-tech/midline/high-tech makes for good short-hand, there's no reason why the Mastery/Core/Expansion epochs/design doctrines can't be mentioned in descriptions, the way the Cruiser School still is.

[SCC]

For the actual topic, it kinda makes sense since high-tech ships are more expensive and have better stats than others (except hp of course).

Individual ships, yes. Fleets, not really, partly because of AI and partly because of high-tech having higher maintenance.

Without reading lore, I would probably guess Core is low-tech, Expansion for midline, and Mastery for high-tech.  Not Mastery for low, Core for mid, and Expansion for high.

I don't think we have to use them in the same exact order, or even those exact words, just something that doesn't suggest performance tiers.

So yes the old style naming would at the least be clearer to new players, and just make a bit more sense in general.

It wouldn't be clearer at all, it's very vague. However, that wold be good in this situation, since naming scheme not suggesting anything is better than the suggestion being misleading.

[Histidine]

I dislike the tech level designations for the false indication of quality.
But I also dislike the epoch system for the same reason as Megas: it's not intuitive which is which. And until you learn they even represent certain "doctrinal" categories of ships and weapons, they're just, practically speaking, arbitrary strings.

Best substitute I could come up with was something like SCC's: Classic; Transitional; Modern

[Plantissue]

I don't like either of the naming scheme for the design type. Like others have written, one is vague, and the other implies a quality tier. Ideally the naming scheme should describe the attributes to which the grouping is in. Something that evokes the idea of Armour/ballistic, midline, Energy/shields.  But then there are exceptions like phase ships. Maybe chemical, midline, energy? Durable, midline, flux?