Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12

Author Topic: Low Tech ship non viablility  (Read 16462 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #90 on: May 18, 2020, 07:01:03 PM »

Well, a lot of the low-tech stuff tends to be "meant to be pretty bad", but that's not the design philosophy of low-tech, that's just many of the "intentionally bad" ships happening to be low-tech. E.G. the Hound, Cerberus, Buffalo Mk.II, and the Condor, are all low-grade ships, so if they generally don't work out - especially past the early game! - that's to be expected. They're supposed to underperform, for various reasons.

Really, in those size classes, the only "proper" combat ships that are supposed to be up to par are the Lasher and the Enforcer, so I wouldn't lean too heavily on the other ships when trying to analyze things.

(That said, I know what you mean in general; it's largely I think a question of progression. I'd generally agree that the early game flies by too fast right now. The skill revamp should help here, too - not specifically by extending the early game, but by encouraging smaller ships/fleets in several ways...)

(Edit: the Condor's not too bad, really, btw. The Drover is just an enormous outlier, so, I don't think it's a great point of reference. It badly needs the nerf bat, and has had an appointment with it.)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 07:02:54 PM by Alex »
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #91 on: May 18, 2020, 07:46:12 PM »

Don't miss his point that it is as easy to acquire mil-grade ships as it is the meh ships.

Had the game up so I popped into Mairaath and lo and behold a pristine Afflictor and a pristine Centurion on the black market. Open market has a 2 d-mod Wolf, not bad.

Pop over to Port Tse: 2 pristine Shrikes, pristine Drover, 1 d-mod Wolf, and a 3 d-mod Omen.

Between the same markets there are 6 Shepherds, 3 Mules, 2 Condors, 1 Colossus III, 1 Buffalo2, 1 Hound, 1 Cerberus, 1 Lasher, 1 Gremlin, and 1 Wayfarer.

Discounting the Shepherds and Wolves, that's 6 ships that can last you the whole game vs. 12 ships you will ditch sooner or later, assuming you use them at all.


Maybe black market ships should have a quality penalty.

What I think I want is for it to be harder to acquire mil-grade ships, but less of a lottery to get the rare ones. Popped through several TT markets - several Drovers and Afflictors, zero Medusas or Tempests.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #92 on: May 18, 2020, 08:01:46 PM »

@Nick XR: Thanks, glad you enjoyed it :)

@Megas: Yes, my preferred SO Hammerhead build is 2 Chainguns and 4 LDMGs, if I have enough OP to scrape them all together. Sometimes I'll go 4 single lmgs if I really need a hullmod/extra flux stats/etc to counter a D mod. This change will help to bring the SO hammerhead into line by halving the crazy 800 kinetic DPS the small mounts could give. With only 2 I might be tempted to even go from ACG/ACG to ACG/HMG in the mediums: still powerful, but a lot less hull crushing power.
Logged

Eji1700

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #93 on: May 18, 2020, 08:42:50 PM »

Well, a lot of the low-tech stuff tends to be "meant to be pretty bad", but that's not the design philosophy of low-tech, that's just many of the "intentionally bad" ships happening to be low-tech. E.G. the Hound, Cerberus, Buffalo Mk.II, and the Condor, are all low-grade ships, so if they generally don't work out - especially past the early game! - that's to be expected. They're supposed to underperform, for various reasons.

Really, in those size classes, the only "proper" combat ships that are supposed to be up to par are the Lasher and the Enforcer, so I wouldn't lean too heavily on the other ships when trying to analyze things.

(That said, I know what you mean in general; it's largely I think a question of progression. I'd generally agree that the early game flies by too fast right now. The skill revamp should help here, too - not specifically by extending the early game, but by encouraging smaller ships/fleets in several ways...)

(Edit: the Condor's not too bad, really, btw. The Drover is just an enormous outlier, so, I don't think it's a great point of reference. It badly needs the nerf bat, and has had an appointment with it.)

See i'm a little sad to see the buffalo on that list.  One of my most memorable moments of feeling like I was getting "good" at the game was when I was using those to really punch way above my weight.  It took some clever fleet/character design, and still was hard to manage due to all the other reasons i mentioned, but it's a good feeling to feel like you're mastering the games mechanics vs just "buying the good ship".

Granted it's not like I have any complaints with the balance in the grand scheme.  This game still avoids many common land mines that other devs just faceplant into and ruin games with, so more just food for thought i guess.

Don't miss his point that it is as easy to acquire mil-grade ships as it is the meh ships.

Had the game up so I popped into Mairaath and lo and behold a pristine Afflictor and a pristine Centurion on the black market. Open market has a 2 d-mod Wolf, not bad.

Pop over to Port Tse: 2 pristine Shrikes, pristine Drover, 1 d-mod Wolf, and a 3 d-mod Omen.

Between the same markets there are 6 Shepherds, 3 Mules, 2 Condors, 1 Colossus III, 1 Buffalo2, 1 Hound, 1 Cerberus, 1 Lasher, 1 Gremlin, and 1 Wayfarer.

Discounting the Shepherds and Wolves, that's 6 ships that can last you the whole game vs. 12 ships you will ditch sooner or later, assuming you use them at all.


Maybe black market ships should have a quality penalty.

What I think I want is for it to be harder to acquire mil-grade ships, but less of a lottery to get the rare ones. Popped through several TT markets - several Drovers and Afflictors, zero Medusas or Tempests.

Yeah i'm a big believer in making things special through specific scarcity.  Not rng loot things but like "yeah X planet is where you find Y ship, but only if you've done A thing, can do B, or will risk C".

Just toning down ship availability in a few ways might do a lot to make planets/systems themselves more memorable (i know the names of like 2), and make acquiring specific hulls more of a moment (and help the salvage game).

Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #94 on: May 18, 2020, 09:51:35 PM »

See i'm a little sad to see the buffalo on that list.  One of my most memorable moments of feeling like I was getting "good" at the game was when I was using those to really punch way above my weight.  It took some clever fleet/character design, and still was hard to manage due to all the other reasons i mentioned, but it's a good feeling to feel like you're mastering the games mechanics vs just "buying the good ship".

Granted it's not like I have any complaints with the balance in the grand scheme.  This game still avoids many common land mines that other devs just faceplant into and ruin games with, so more just food for thought i guess.

To be fair, if the Buffalo Mk.II wasn't basically a joke ship, it wouldn't have been as satisfying to actually make it work :) So, this is by definition not a situation that can be "balanced" around.

Don't miss his point that it is as easy to acquire mil-grade ships as it is the meh ships.

Had the game up so I popped into Mairaath and lo and behold a pristine Afflictor and a pristine Centurion on the black market. Open market has a 2 d-mod Wolf, not bad.

Pop over to Port Tse: 2 pristine Shrikes, pristine Drover, 1 d-mod Wolf, and a 3 d-mod Omen.

Between the same markets there are 6 Shepherds, 3 Mules, 2 Condors, 1 Colossus III, 1 Buffalo2, 1 Hound, 1 Cerberus, 1 Lasher, 1 Gremlin, and 1 Wayfarer.

Discounting the Shepherds and Wolves, that's 6 ships that can last you the whole game vs. 12 ships you will ditch sooner or later, assuming you use them at all.


Maybe black market ships should have a quality penalty.

What I think I want is for it to be harder to acquire mil-grade ships, but less of a lottery to get the rare ones. Popped through several TT markets - several Drovers and Afflictors, zero Medusas or Tempests.

It's a fair point.


Yeah i'm a big believer in making things special through specific scarcity.  Not rng loot things but like "yeah X planet is where you find Y ship, but only if you've done A thing, can do B, or will risk C".

Hmm... that's interesting.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #95 on: May 18, 2020, 10:49:14 PM »

It isn't fair to compare Hounds and Cerberuses to Omens, because one is a combat frigate and the others are hybrid frigates. A lot of low-tech stuff is either bad or hybrids, meaning they don't fight as well as dedicated combat ships, of its own tech level or of others.
Even without Reserve Deployment, Condor has about 2/3rds of Drover's OP, while having comparable mounts, worse shields and worse mobility. Just pay 2 more DP and get some proper fighters for your carrier.

Locklave

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #96 on: May 18, 2020, 11:06:26 PM »

Well, a lot of the low-tech stuff tends to be "meant to be pretty bad", but that's not the design philosophy of low-tech, that's just many of the "intentionally bad" ships happening to be low-tech. E.G. the Hound, Cerberus, Buffalo Mk.II, and the Condor, are all low-grade ships, so if they generally don't work out - especially past the early game! - that's to be expected. They're supposed to underperform, for various reasons.

Really, in those size classes, the only "proper" combat ships that are supposed to be up to par are the Lasher and the Enforcer, so I wouldn't lean too heavily on the other ships when trying to analyze things.

(That said, I know what you mean in general; it's largely I think a question of progression. I'd generally agree that the early game flies by too fast right now. The skill revamp should help here, too - not specifically by extending the early game, but by encouraging smaller ships/fleets in several ways...)

(Edit: the Condor's not too bad, really, btw. The Drover is just an enormous outlier, so, I don't think it's a great point of reference. It badly needs the nerf bat, and has had an appointment with it.)

Any chance the fuel/supplies costs of Low tech relative to Midline/High tech might might be considered? I get that a number of them are designed to be bad as literally their role in the game, but shouldn't even those junkier ships be cheaper to upkeep. The difference between them in some cases is like an extra d-mod on a pristine ship.

As an example the Onslaught cost more to maintain then the Paragon. It uses 50% more fuel and when you factor in the extra 350 required crew cost, skeleton crew, relative to supplies the Paragon is still cheaper. Nearly all the low tech ships seem to be suffering from the maintenance cost issue.

Aren't they intended to be the cost efficient choice with less bells and whistles?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 11:21:28 PM by Locklave »
Logged

dead_hand

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #97 on: May 19, 2020, 04:36:47 AM »

Well, a lot of the low-tech stuff tends to be "meant to be pretty bad", but that's not the design philosophy of low-tech, that's just many of the "intentionally bad" ships happening to be low-tech. E.G. the Hound, Cerberus, Buffalo Mk.II, and the Condor, are all low-grade ships, so if they generally don't work out - especially past the early game! - that's to be expected. They're supposed to underperform, for various reasons.

Really, in those size classes, the only "proper" combat ships that are supposed to be up to par are the Lasher and the Enforcer, so I wouldn't lean too heavily on the other ships when trying to analyze things.

(That said, I know what you mean in general; it's largely I think a question of progression. I'd generally agree that the early game flies by too fast right now. The skill revamp should help here, too - not specifically by extending the early game, but by encouraging smaller ships/fleets in several ways...)

(Edit: the Condor's not too bad, really, btw. The Drover is just an enormous outlier, so, I don't think it's a great point of reference. It badly needs the nerf bat, and has had an appointment with it.)

Is there any chance/hope for a Drover nerf?
Logged

Havoc

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #98 on: May 19, 2020, 06:00:09 AM »

I like the Enforcer changes
hope ai can also use the tank like an tank
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #99 on: May 19, 2020, 06:18:00 AM »

Any chance the fuel/supplies costs of Low tech relative to Midline/High tech might might be considered? I get that a number of them are designed to be bad as literally their role in the game, but shouldn't even those junkier ships be cheaper to upkeep. The difference between them in some cases is like an extra d-mod on a pristine ship.

As an example the Onslaught cost more to maintain then the Paragon. It uses 50% more fuel and when you factor in the extra 350 required crew cost, skeleton crew, relative to supplies the Paragon is still cheaper. Nearly all the low tech ships seem to be suffering from the maintenance cost issue.

Aren't they intended to be the cost efficient choice with less bells and whistles?

The head-canon I've always had is that Low-Tech military ships (not the intentionally bad stuff) were the old-school, dirty-but-works, "clunkers" that burn tons of fuel and has tons of armor. Its sort of like comparing a diesel battleship to a modern-day nuclear destroyer. Most of the Low Tech ships reinforce this by having a brutalistic aesthetic and very simplistic frontal firepower design.

However, the fuel consumption of Low-Tech ships being 50% higher than their Mid-Line/High-Tech cousins is a tough pill to swallow, especially at the Capital level (which, in general, is already a 300% jump from Cruisers).

Instead of lowering Fuel Costs, which would be trivial (though to be fair, the easiest method) why not make Low-Tech less of the "slow behemoth"-type and more like the "screaming demon"-type? Give the mil-spec low tech ships an extra Burn level (because, after all, they're paying the fuel for it!). It may seem a bit counter-intuitive, at first, but their Burn Drives in battle already support this MO. Suddenly, the Enforcer can keep up with Frigates, which gives it a logistical edge over its peers and gives Frigate fleets an anvil. The Dominator can keep up with Destroyers, allowing it to bully everything it can catch. The Mora is actually faster than a Heron and could be part of a Destroyer battlegroup. And the Onslaught/Legion, well, they're paying 15 fuel/ly but now they don't need Augmented Engines to keep up with Cruisers. I think Low-Tech ships being able to keep up increases the liklihood that people will use them a class-size down if their fleets don't suffer a burn penalty because of it. I think it would also improve the use of Low-Tech ships, in general, since you could flagship a true Cruiser with a Destroyer fleet and the like.

I sort of like the idea that the old-school philosophy was "We have plenty of fuel. What we don't have is plenty of speed" and they just overdrive all of these big clunky engines to go faster but burn ludicrous amounts of fuel to do so. An all Low-Tech fleet would actually be fast, but you're paying a premium for it. 
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 06:28:14 AM by FooF »
Logged

Locklave

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #100 on: May 19, 2020, 08:37:48 AM »

I guess it just boils down for me to the game punishing me for preferring the Low tech ship play style. They trade up features/shields/energy weapons and crazy systems for armor/ballistics and loss of speed, isn't that the balance right there? Are they overpowered without the increased costs?

Paragon > Onslaught. Always and in every type of engagement. This frankly feels like the most egregious example given the difference in power. But the Onslaught costs more to upkeep.

If the supply cost difference of Midline/High tech is completely offset and even surpassed in cost by the increased crew requirements then Low tech while suffering from a 50% greater fuel usage, the Low tech ship are just always worse in the long term without exception.
Logged

dead_hand

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #101 on: May 19, 2020, 09:27:39 AM »


Paragon > Onslaught. Always and in every type of engagement. This frankly feels like the most egregious example given the difference in power. But the Onslaught costs more to upkeep.

60 DP vs 40 DP, it would be quite sad if +20 DP did NOT amount to a clear advantage.
Logged

Eji1700

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #102 on: May 19, 2020, 09:39:58 AM »

See i'm a little sad to see the buffalo on that list.  One of my most memorable moments of feeling like I was getting "good" at the game was when I was using those to really punch way above my weight.  It took some clever fleet/character design, and still was hard to manage due to all the other reasons i mentioned, but it's a good feeling to feel like you're mastering the games mechanics vs just "buying the good ship".

Granted it's not like I have any complaints with the balance in the grand scheme.  This game still avoids many common land mines that other devs just faceplant into and ruin games with, so more just food for thought i guess.

To be fair, if the Buffalo Mk.II wasn't basically a joke ship, it wouldn't have been as satisfying to actually make it work :) So, this is by definition not a situation that can be "balanced" around.

Not to get lost in this, but it could be easier and still be rewarding?  It's sort of what i'm hoping we get from story points, just more avenues to alternate playstyles.  At any point you can self impose limits to try and achieve things, but "make low tech work" isn't exactly something that's encouraged either.  To be fair i'm not sure how you do it elegantly, but so meting along the lines of "low tech ships get a free hull mod", "Low tech ships have a % chance to take no dmod on destruction", or just something along those lines to even nudge players in that direction. 

Obviously it shouldn't be the only style, but it's quite a rewarding one when it works.

On the other hand i'm pretty hype for the next patch by all means ditch this nonsense if it gets it out faster.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #103 on: May 19, 2020, 10:34:03 AM »

There's definitely an issue of ship availability here IMO. Over the long term, your political choices in the game don't really affect your ability to get certain ships (or matter at all). You can always find blueprints and recover/restore any ship (that actually gets used) regardless of what faction you aligned with, or who you are hostile with, and you can also just repair your rep and take commissions at any time.

To me, the interesting decision would be if you had to be aligned with TT and hostile to the hegemony to get a paragon. Then you might decide to 'make low tech work' in order to be on the side of the hegemony who have more systems/fleets /resources to help you.
Logged

Locklave

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #104 on: May 19, 2020, 10:57:29 AM »


Paragon > Onslaught. Always and in every type of engagement. This frankly feels like the most egregious example given the difference in power. But the Onslaught costs more to upkeep.

60 DP vs 40 DP, it would be quite sad if +20 DP did NOT amount to a clear advantage.

My point is it's sad that the +20 DP ship is cheaper to maintain.

Clearly the Paragon is stronger and should be. No problem with that from me, that wasn't my point at all.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12