Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Locklave on May 14, 2020, 08:49:13 PM

Title: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 14, 2020, 08:49:13 PM
So I've been watching the development over the last year and I'm seeing lots of Midline/High Tech. It feels and it's just a feeling that Low tech is slowly becoming less viable in terms of the next update. Although I'll point out that every test showing of the new weapons/ships is blowing a Low Tech ship to bits.

Or is low tech just terrible and people are fine with that?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 14, 2020, 09:50:36 PM
Low tech is all about intentionally and efficiently trading away your armor and limited missiles for flux advantage. Player-piloted in sim low tech performs about as well as DP score suggests, even better in short duels.
But AI is not good at this kind of judgements, it's either Reckless or too skittish.

On the other hand, the currency better high tech ships (Plasma Odyssey, Paragon, Medusa, AM Afflictor/Shade) trade in is full PPT/CR. While less fortunate ships like Shrike and future Fury end up as worst of both worlds being limited by missile ammo. Aurora is somewhere in between - it can make do without missiles, but isn't really good at it unless SO (which has it's own massive drawbacks).
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: AxleMC131 on May 14, 2020, 10:18:44 PM
If you compare the sizes of the Low, Mid and High-tech rosters, the low-tech catalogue actually has a lot of ships. Granted it includes a large number of logistics vessels, but actually I think the midline roster has even more. And high-tech has a much slimmer roster, only two destroyers and two cruisers (not counting phase ships), but with three capitals and the heaviest focus on frigates.

So, it's not that low-tech is being left behind, but rather midline and high-tech are being better fleshed-out to match it.

As far as demonstrating new mechanics against low-tech vessels (ie. Onslaught), that's probably because they don't move much so are easy to hit with things. Also because of their reliance on armour for defence, their AI is happy to drop shields and tank hits on the armour, which I presume is good for demonstrative purposes as it gives a much more impactful visual effect, as you see physical damage being dealt.

(It's also worth noting that the last few major updates we've often seen strong additions for low-tech, with things like the Shepherd, Legion, and Atlas Mk.II, so if anything a break is warranted.)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 14, 2020, 10:56:11 PM
It's not so much that there are more or less but rather that the best choice for everything already seems to be Midline/High tech. I see the twitter stuff and it looks like even more domination in those classes.

Are low tech more efficient? Fuel/supplies relative to class?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 14, 2020, 11:09:35 PM
The Low Tech ships are get better the bigger they are, in my opinion.

They are very easy to out manoeuvre, and can't rely as much of their shields, but are otherwise very strong with VERY powerful ballistic slots, great small ballistic coverage for point defence, and long combat readiness timers.

Lashers are a frigate with the same ability as hammerhead destroyers, making them highly effective at blitzing enemy targets in a short amount of time. Enforcers are perhaps a little dodgy but it's all medium gun focus with four forward facing small missile mounts can make them decently good with a ton of load-outs even if they get beaten by more specialised ships. Dominator's will outshoot anything that sits in front of it with it's insane load out of two large ballistic mounts, two medium ballistic mounts, three medium missile mounts and a spread of small ballistic mounts. Out manoeuvring it is easy, but if you couldn't it would be one of the best ships in the game.
And the Onslaught is a deployment point cost efficient capital ship that comes with powerful built in energy blasters. Because what one Onslaught cannot kill, two or three certainly can!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Scorpixel on May 14, 2020, 11:16:08 PM
Low tech warships do have terrible flux stats, passable to mediocre shields and basic abilities.
Still, if we ignore the junk ships and combat freighters of that family, the remaining ones are pretty decent if not outright good. There's black sheeps like the Enforcer but the cruiser/capital side of things can get things done and hold their own for long enough to to dominate with superior CR.

And it somehow holds true with mods (from the official index at least). Lots of garbage frigates, decent skirmishers, trash destroyers and interesting if not outright impressive liners (special mention to the Subjugator, love that one).
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 15, 2020, 01:23:51 AM
I honestly think they're completely fine combat wise, but the logistics in campaign is what bugs me. They're supposed to be the cheap group, yet you end up spending more fuel and supplies than on equal high tech / midline ships. Seriously, 40 DP capital spending 50% more fuel than a 60 DP Paragon, it's crazy. Oh I almost forgot another thing, crew, yet another thing that brings the total cost higher.

Anyways I would like to see a low tech warship somewhere between a destroyer and a cruiser. A stronger low tech Fury if you will.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 15, 2020, 02:22:17 AM
flux advantage.

Hold up... isn't out-fluxing them the most common way of defeating low-tech ships ?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 15, 2020, 02:25:05 AM
Hold up... isn't out-fluxing them the most common way of defeating low-tech ships ?
It's the common way of defeating any ship? I mean that's the whole point of combat. Sure you can put torpedoes up someone's ass but that's not common.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: isyourmojofly on May 15, 2020, 02:43:59 AM
Isn't the problem with the way AI handles shields?

Low-tech playstyle is to just take hits on your armour, preserving your limited flux pool to unleash your huge ballistic armament. The AI tries to use the shields a little too much, which it can't really afford to do, and ends up with no flux to shoot.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 15, 2020, 02:57:31 AM
Well, yes, the way AI works is particularly bad for low tech armor-based ships.

Sometimes it looks like AI tries to armor tank, but without any rhyme or reason (like taking HE/high damage energy shots while flux is still low, AI Paragon fighting vs Autopulse Radiant is really prone to this). It's also never selective (flickering shield to catch HE, but letting kinetics pass) like player would do.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Havoc on May 15, 2020, 03:54:13 AM
is it possible to loadout a ship to AI use blink shields vs rockets/HE and tank with armor?

accelerated shields and stuff like that?
aggresive officer?

I like low tech ships, but AI can't use armor to tank dmg if there are several oponents
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 15, 2020, 04:23:12 AM
Hold up... isn't out-fluxing them the most common way of defeating low-tech ships ?
It's the common way of defeating any ship? I mean that's the whole point of combat. Sure you can put torpedoes up someone's ass but that's not common.

Depends on what you are facing. Some ships don't have large shield arcs to deploy, so their flux stats are of lesser importance. E.g. a Conquest can't surround itself with shields, so if it is distracted, bombers can fly in and possibly damage it enough to get the AI to retreat it.

But from my experience about Low-Tech ships, High Tech ships with Ion Pulsers are extremely effective because dropping their shields gets punished hard that way.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 15, 2020, 08:53:24 AM
I find that due to the ease of acquiring highly effective HE weapons, and how shields are tired to flux like weapons, the two are hard to compare in effectiveness.

You turn your shields off and almost immediately get blasted by torpedoes, artillery cannons, missiles and more that burn through your finite armour in seconds.

I can get the AI being hesitant of energy weapons, as they are still far more effective then kinetic damage weapons against armour. And when you only have kinetic weapons the AI will just straight up turn their shields off and burn you with all their fire-power.

Put one light mortar on your ships and it just LOSES ITS MIND and will shield tank until it's full of flux, no matter what.

If anything I'd say it's the prevalence of HE guns that kills low tech style ships as they are built for mass kinetic guns, and for countering missile based HE like torpedoes and bombers with their usual amount of flak they can pack. But it's hard to say that doesn't also keep them balanced vs high tech that barely needs any HE at all to counter.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 15, 2020, 09:50:08 AM
I honestly think they're completely fine combat wise, but the logistics in campaign is what bugs me. They're supposed to be the cheap group, yet you end up spending more fuel and supplies than on equal high tech / midline ships. Seriously, 40 DP capital spending 50% more fuel than a 60 DP Paragon, it's crazy. Oh I almost forgot another thing, crew, yet another thing that brings the total cost higher.

Anyways I would like to see a low tech warship somewhere between a destroyer and a cruiser. A stronger low tech Fury if you will.

This is the kind of thing that confuses me. Fuel usage stands out on Low tech ships.

The way the game itself describes Low tech ships makes it sound like

- Armor and Ballistics over shields and energy weapons
- They are cheaper to buy and maintain because they lack specialty system

They should be using equivalent fuel to travel unless it's a junker or something pirates/LP build and modded to do things it shouldn't. Why are Low tech ships long range space travel system eating up so much more fuel? Why is it using a terrible drive system?

It's fine if they get outclassed 1v1 vs a midline/high tech ship, it's not okay that those midline/high tech ships cost less to maintain Fuel/Supplies. That is counter intuitive to the point of Low tech.

edit:
I'm glad other people with more knowledge then me are posting and I'm glad people take the subject matter seriously. Thank you all.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Nick XR on May 15, 2020, 10:20:45 AM
A note on something that is pretty important but not realized until it often kills you is how little CR decay there is for deploying the ships.  If you play Nexerlin there will be occasions you'll have to fight several huge fleet battles in a row without a chance to repair.  If you're fielding high-tech ships, the CR decay from deploying twice in a row can be devastating, especially if you've taken any kind of damage.  It can still be an issue with low-tech, but it's not usually enough to kill you.  I've personally fought three huge battles in a row (14 invasion fleets) with a low tech fleet and came out ahead.  I don't think could have been done with a high-tech fleet, maybe midline could pull it off.

A quick summary of a few of the low-tech ships I think standout:

Enforcer
Fit with 2 flak, 2 maulers, 1 needler & some rockets & heavy armor.  This dirt cheap ship is not sexy to personally fly, but in the AI's hands it wont get killed doing something stupid (I'm looking at you all high tech destroyers)

Dominator 
The three missile hard points at the front of this ship make it trivial to land hits with Reapers.  Just get some ballistic weapons that will force the enemy to drop their shields and delete them by firing the three reapers at the same time.  The AI is a bit dodgy with this as optimal usage of missiles isn't the AIs strongest point.

Onslaught
Plenty has been said about this
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 15, 2020, 10:50:45 AM
Biggest issue with low-tech ships is the AI. Its not nearly aggressive enough with shield flickering. It isn't really hard to quickly drive the flux up and keep it there and once there, it's too late for shield flickering, even if that's about the only state when the AI will reliably do it. I see people talking about it, but it rarely happens to me.
Low-tech ships get better when they get bigger, due to low-tech doctrine favouring long range and armour. In Starsector it's better to upgrade things ships are already good at, instead of trying to make up for their weaknesses. Since cruisers and capitals already get more range and armour just because, it synergises well with low-tech.
I wouldn't count logistic ships in any tech level comparisons. They don't go into combat, so them being of any tech level is almost meaningless. Same thing for hybrid ships, which I avoid whenever I can.
It's fine if they get outclassed 1v1 vs a midline/high tech ship, it's not okay that those midline/high tech ships cost less to maintain Fuel/Supplies. That is counter intuitive to the point of Low tech.
This is correct. It's ridiculous that low-tech ships end up being actually expensive. It seems that low-tech ships typically end up being about 30% more expensive to use, due to a combination of higher crew requirements (each 10 crew costs you about as much as 1 maintenance) and lower fuel efficiency.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 15, 2020, 10:57:39 AM
Yeah I'd be up for a differing balance of engines.

Low Tech style ships have slow, but fuel cost efficient engines. (Basic)

Midline style ships have fast, but expensive cost efficient engines. (Specialists)

High tech style ships have a balanced style engine that is neither the fastest, nor the most expensive. (Special)

I know some people might prefer high tech to be the fastest but I do feel like we really need to decouple the preconception that "high tech" means better when in reality it really, REALLY, doesn't.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 15, 2020, 11:05:10 AM

Enforcer


One of the most underrated ships imho. Yes, it is basically a small weapons platform, but it is really easy to acquire in greater numbers, so losses are easy to replace, and packs quite a punch for its DP cost. One of my favourite low tech ships.

And the Legion is a great ship as well, it's a very flexible ship.

 I think what Low-Tech needs is a ship that fulfills a role similar to Conquest. Legions are nice but if you were to build a full low-tech fleet, you'd struggle to find ships that can back it up, the Onslaught is not good for protecting carriers. (not mobile enough)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 15, 2020, 11:07:39 AM
To be fair, low tech moras are very survivable on their own unlike more flimsy drovers and herons. With their two medium missile mounts they can even pose a serious threat to cruisers if they get too confident.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 16, 2020, 10:47:52 AM
To be fair, low tech moras are very survivable on their own unlike more flimsy drovers and herons. With their two medium missile mounts they can even pose a serious threat to cruisers if they get too confident.

Survivable how? Drover and Herons can get away from enemies, Drovers are hard to even engage in the first place because they will kite. Herons can disengage and reengage with ease compared to Mora. Mora just has to eat the damage because it has no chance of escape. Not getting hit is the best survival for Carriers.

Honestly I'd say that's just more the difference between Low Tech vs Midline/High Tech for carriers and larger ships.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 16, 2020, 11:24:41 AM
While I do see Herons successful kite enemies, drovers have very little chance in my experience of escaping death without fighting back or being rescued. A Mora can't run, and frankly doesn't need to as it's survivability, ship system, and missile mounts make is more comparable to a light cruiser in terms of combat ability.

That's my opinion anyway as even my Herons often just get caught and killed, so while not getting his is preferable it isn't a guarantee vs phase ships and frigates. Let alone enemy carriers.

Frankly not getting hit is the best for all the ships, but when you do you'd generally prefer not to explode in seconds like a Drover does.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 16, 2020, 12:00:36 PM
While I do see Herons successful kite enemies, drovers have very little chance in my experience of escaping death without fighting back or being rescued. A Mora can't run, and frankly doesn't need to as it's survivability, ship system, and missile mounts make is more comparable to a light cruiser in terms of combat ability.

That's my opinion anyway as even my Herons often just get caught and killed, so while not getting his is preferable it isn't a guarantee vs phase ships and frigates. Let alone enemy carriers.

Frankly not getting hit is the best for all the ships, but when you do you'd generally prefer not to explode in seconds like a Drover does.

Drover to Mora comparison isn't really fair given one is capital. Drover to Condor is fair, I use that fair loosely. Same size/job and Low tech vs Midline.

I don't think there'd be a debate on which of those has better survival. Drover is leagues better and only costs 2 more supplies 10 vs 12.

Mora vs Heron is a debate for the ages in fighting ability.

Suppies/Fuel/crew
20/4/300 Mora
20/3/250 Heron

What isn't a debate is that Mora burns more fuels and cost more to man.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 16, 2020, 12:16:33 PM
What? The Mora is a cruiser not a capital ship.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 16, 2020, 12:20:07 PM
What? The Mora is a cruiser not a capital ship.

My bad, I'm used to other games where cruisers are capitol class. In any case it's 1 size category larger then Drover.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 16, 2020, 12:21:46 PM
Moras are tanky with their armor/hp/system - the system in particular is nasty because it doesn't stop their fighters from respawning, nor their missiles from rearming. Broadswords/claws disabling an attacking ship while Reapers reload is good. If fighting enemies that can get to the carriers, this is very valuable. Its more noticeable with significant mods imo: in vanilla a Heron can outrun must things that seriously threaten it. Mods escalate into fast/teleporting cruisers/capitals that can successfully hunt them down.

I don't like how low tech ships require more fuel than the other techs. Its not a deal breaker, but in most cases its the equivalent of having a D mod baked in.



The only low tech ship I really dislike is the Enforcer, which is just... worse. It has 1.2 shield, unlike lasher, dominator, mora, onslaught, legion, so its effective shield hp is 83% of its flux capacity. Usually higher than normal shield (worse) is to compensate for superior flux stats (see: sunder, conquest), but the Enforcer has the typical low tech poor flux stats. An enforcer with 10 caps (a reasonable amount) has 5000 ESH, while a Hammerhead with 10 has 7750.

Armor wise, 750 is tough for a destroyer. But armor needs to be compared against available weapons, and there are plenty with the power to break 750: any medium HE and any anti-armor medium energy (phase lance/heavy blaster) in particular will reduce 750 very very quickly. (The ratio of damage/(damage + 750) is pretty good for the damage. For Dominators with 1500 armor, the ratio is worse, so not only is the armor more but it takes much less damage against the common weapons it is facing.) High damage per shot energy weapons in particular absolutely crush Enforcers: their shield is poor enough that it can't tank energy, but those weapons also have high enough penetration to wreck the armor. So while it is tough for a destroyer, destroyer armor is woefully weak in the first place against common medium scale weapons, so its still not great.

Weapon wise, the Enforcer has great slots, but it doesn't have the flux to fire them. At 400 flux with 20 vents, it can fire 2 standard efficiency medium ballistics, or 3 high efficiency ones: arbalest/arbalest/heavy mortar is an OP cheap, decent flux budget (420), and high efficiency (300k+220he) main armament. However, they are short (700) range, and the Enforcer is slow: this enforcer can be kited to death by almost any ship. Using long range ballistics lest the Enforcer leverage its many medium mounts and compensate for its speed, but these are low efficiency: HVD/HVD/Mauler is 500 flux, and lowish damage (275k, 130he). These aren't terrible, but at this point the ship is overfluxed (80 shield leaves it 180 over dissipation) with low enough DPS that it will struggle. On top of this, the Enforcer lacks an offensive ship system like 2 of its competitors, leaving it outgunned and outrun in all situations.

Being able to mount many flaks makes Enforcers good against many types of fighters/missiles, which is a good thing. Its not a bad ship to have cover the flanks of a capital/cruiser when facing missile/fighter spam.

4 small missiles is nice, but its important to remember that 4 small missiles is the rough equivalent of 1 medium missile for the strike missiles (sabot, harpoon), while costing twice the OP. The Enforcer has that OP, but the unusual ratio is good to remember. For torpedoes, 4 small slots is wonderfully good! 4 Reapers/Hammers/Annihilators is both efficient and lets Enforcers be a threat against cruisers/capitals, making them again have some value in the cruiser/capital escort role (because they can't get within 1200 range of a capital by themselves without getting obliterated).

3 fuel for a weak destroyer is obnoxious. Not a deal breaker, but it doesn't even make this ship economical to use en mass. They are still a destroyer, and I will take them if they are free, but I'd rather have others.



My suggested fix for the Enforcer: Either play up the tank angle by changing its shield to 1.0 and giving it Damper Field, or turn it into more of a destroyer by upping its flux capacity and dissipation by significant amounts: if it has a 1.2 shield, give it the flux stats to bring its shield toughness back in line with low tech ships while letting it fire its weapon slots.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Schwartz on May 16, 2020, 01:56:39 PM
Low-tech has great ships. Flux may not be great, but you get great armor, great survivability and a great weapons loadout (all ballistic & missiles). Enforcer, Dominator, Onslaught, Mora, Legion are all top tier ships in player hands and still very capable in AI hands. Whereas I would expect a Shrike or even a Sunder to crumble under pressure, Enforcer can keep a cool head with double Flak and dish out damage while the armor keeps it breathing.

I love using all of these, but admittedly Shield Bypass (modded) makes them even better. Dominator with maneuverability bonuses and an aggressive or reckless officer is still terrifying.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 16, 2020, 02:10:52 PM
I think increasing missile ammo or adding slow regeneration would help low tech a lot. They tend to rely on missiles because their flux stats are bad, and missiles just aren't reliable enough in long fights for those load outs to be effective. Maybe low tech ships could get built in expanded missile racks (or a nerfed version) or something.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: FooF on May 16, 2020, 02:42:48 PM
@ Thaago

The Enforcer is the first of the "flying bricks" that the Dominator and Onslaught fall into and you're right, 750 armor is Class-best for the Destroyers but still "not enough" to make it a hard-target. Up the Armor to 1000 and, yes, increase the shield efficiency, even if it's to 1.1 from 1.2.

I don't like the idea of giving it Dampener field, though. Burn Drive is what makes the "flying bricks" work, otherwise they just get kited and its death by a thousand paper cuts.

Could it use more flux dissipation/capacity? Sure, but all Low-Tech ships have the issue of more mounts than flux stats. I don't think the Enforcer is an outlier, here. Almost every Enforcer build I've ever seen (outside of SO builds) has 2 Flak on it precisely for this reason.

Overall, I don't think the Enforcer is awful, but it's definitely not better than a Hammerhead, Sunder, or Medusa. If it was a little tougher, it could trade armor for DPS, which is what Low-Tech is good at. It is relatively tough to Destroyers but not tough enough, in general, to do what it seems to be intended to.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: MesoTroniK on May 16, 2020, 08:21:47 PM
The problem with the Enforcer is not the Enforcer, it is the Hammerhead. Nerf outliers, don't power creep things that are fine.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Snowblind on May 16, 2020, 09:19:53 PM
The problem with the Enforcer is not the Enforcer, it is the Hammerhead. Nerf outliers, don't power creep things that are fine.
Is it, though? The Hammerhead is just about the only vanilla combat destroyer that I will snap up once I have started transitioning to a cruiser/capital fleet. And unlike the Drover, the Hammerhead doesn't obsolete anything of a larger ship class - it is good, but not a substitute for a real cruiser.

Either the other destroyers that aren't named "Drover" should be brought up to the level of the Hammerhead or there needs to be a change in the combat mechanics to make destroyers generally better before the nerf hammer is brought down on the Hammerhead. Otherwise, all that would be accomplished is making a marginalized ship class even more marginalized.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 16, 2020, 09:35:56 PM
But the Enforcer isn't weaker than just the Hammerhead: its weaker than all of the combat destroyers while being more expensive to run in fuel and crew.

The problem with the Enforcer is not the Enforcer, it is the Hammerhead. Nerf outliers, don't power creep things that are fine.
Is it, though? The Hammerhead is just about the only vanilla combat destroyer that I will snap up once I have started transitioning to a cruiser/capital fleet. And unlike the Drover, the Hammerhead doesn't obsolete anything of a larger ship class - it is good, but not a substitute for a real cruiser.

Either the other destroyers that aren't named "Drover" should be brought up to the level of the Hammerhead or there needs to be a change in the combat mechanics to make destroyers generally better before the nerf hammer is brought down on the Hammerhead. Otherwise, all that would be accomplished is making a marginalized ship class even more marginalized.

Funnily enough, I stop buying Hammerheads and transition to Sunders and Medusas when I hit cruiser size. Hammerheads are still good gun platforms, but I find that that I either want dedicated artillery (HIL/Tach Sunder) or a high mobility shield tank on the flank (Medusa) than a mid range gun ship.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 16, 2020, 09:38:55 PM
The problem with the Enforcer is not the Enforcer, it is the Hammerhead. Nerf outliers, don't power creep things that are fine.
Is it, though? The Hammerhead is just about the only vanilla combat destroyer that I will snap up once I have started transitioning to a cruiser/capital fleet. And unlike the Drover, the Hammerhead doesn't obsolete anything of a larger ship class - it is good, but not a substitute for a real cruiser.

Either the other destroyers that aren't named "Drover" should be brought up to the level of the Hammerhead or there needs to be a change in the combat mechanics to make destroyers generally better before the nerf hammer is brought down on the Hammerhead. Otherwise, all that would be accomplished is making a marginalized ship class even more marginalized.

Enforcer is easy food for larger ships - too slow to run, too weak to fight. Other DEs have much better positions on "outrun what you can't outgun" spectrum.

Though even Hammerhead is not that good for fights involving cruisers/capitals. It's fast enough to avoid big enemies based on foresight, but AI doesn't have that. AI goes in even against a Paragon and notices that it's outgunned only when shields start failing. At which point it's too late retreat.

But the Enforcer isn't weaker than just the Hammerhead: its weaker than all of the combat destroyers while being more expensive to run in fuel and crew.

I also agree that Shrike doesn't count as proper DE :D.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 16, 2020, 09:51:50 PM
Hah! I was thinking about the Shrike when I wrote that: I think Shrikes are significantly more useful than Enforcers and also just a bit more powerful, mainly due to their high speed and good shield. The Shrike is a proper light destroyer with burn 9 and low crew requirements though, that has a role in hunting frigates and bringing the armor penetration when ganging up on larger vessels.

[Edit] I should say that, with combat analytics in a recent playthrough of mine, AI shrikes of both harpoon and sabot builds tended to hover around 100% contribution by that mod's metric, which I believe is a DP weighted metric of damage/kills of the enemy. I don't have a metric on Enforcers handy tbh because I didn't have combat analytics turned on last time I was seriously trying to use them (double damage bug was then), but I was consistently disappointed by their performance.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: MesoTroniK on May 16, 2020, 10:12:25 PM
I am not talking about campaign stats, just combat balance.

I would prefer to not compare to the Enforcer to the Sunder. As their roles are so vastly different, the Sunder is a glass cannon meant for focusing singular targets and falters when it cannot do so.

Enforcer is a line battler, with the best PD and missile capabilities of any vanilla destroyer. along with the ability to mount potent artillery weapons, or go for a bowling ball SO build.

Hammerhead is indeed overtuned IMO, mostly because it can focus 2 med ballistic and 4 small ballistic AAF boosted weapons all on a singular target along with some missiles. Changing two of the turrets to energy. Or, making it so the back 2 cannot fire forwards would fix it while it would still remain perfectly competitive.

Enforcer you go all in with SO, or you make it part of a battlegroup for a decisive line battle and it is just fine. Could it use some small buffs to its campaign stats? Yea probably, but I really don't think it needs a combat power boost. Few ever bitched about it until the Hammerhead got its prodigious buff that is almost as comically overtuned as what happened to the Assault Chaingun... Which really should be dealing 60 damage per shot and with increased rate of fire :)

The last thing SS needs is more powercreep :(

Edit:
Either the other destroyers that aren't named "Drover" should be brought up to the level of the Hammerhead or there needs to be a change in the combat mechanics to make destroyers generally better before the nerf hammer is brought down on the Hammerhead. Otherwise, all that would be accomplished is making a marginalized ship class even more marginalized.
Heh, Drover is one of the most disgustingly OP things in the entire game. And the reason destroyers are marginalized in general is because the ease of capital ship spam, fighter spam, and skills. All problems the next version of SS is attacking.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Avanitia on May 16, 2020, 10:24:11 PM
From my experience Hammerhead is indeed really strong. Maybe too strong even.

I don't use Sunders, don't really like them.

Enforcer is fine though - max vents, give it 2x long range kinetic weapons, rest PD, maybe converted hangar if you want mining pods as more shielding.
1x Heavy Mortar, 2x Arbalest, 2x Flak Cannon works just fine, cover weakness with maxing vents and giving it few hullmods and it's nice ship to have.

It works perfectly fine within my playstyle that boils down to putting 2 defend orders within 1 grid of free space between them, halt the initial enemy assault, then pushing forward slowly with faster ships flanking and picking off ships while tanky things duke it out (and maybe eat a Hammer or two)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 17, 2020, 01:00:11 AM
I really dig Thaago's suggestions, either double down on the tank role, or make it an actual destroyer and not just target practice. Enforcer is currently just too slow for what it actually does in combat imo, yes it's an excellent flak platform, but I'd rather not have those ships be slow as slugs. Sure you can escort capitals and slow cruisers with it but by then I'm certainly not using Enforcers anymore. And honestly I don't remember when I last used them in campaign. At first they seems really cool so I always had a couple in my fleet, and then I figured I could change up my fleet a bit and saw I did better without them. They definitely need something, even if it's just a campaign stats buff.

And I also think a Shrike is more useful to have in a fleet than an Enforcer (even tho the roles are completely different).

About the Hammerhead thing again. If it's that good, why do people completely forget about them after the cruiser phase? Sure it's a great playership in early game but they die like flies when put in big fights. You're better off having Centurions then. Only 2 outliers I see are the Enforcer and Drover, Shrike could use an OP boost but it's not that bad.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Scorpixel on May 17, 2020, 02:06:04 AM
I'll say it there, i always feared mules more than enforcers, and still do.
Even if not as tanky, they're still though enough to hold their own against most enemies, and their speed allows them to threaten my frigates.

Same for the Shrike (mostly P, thankfully no normal ones for pirates), it's that sweet spot allowing it to deal with small fry while avoiding big fishes before ganging-up on them.
Meanwhile the Enforcer arrives, gets overfluxed by an angry Hound, tries to flee but can't, gets it's face caved-in and dies.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 17, 2020, 02:25:05 AM
I will personally say that drovers just stack really really well, as a single one is not largely better or worse then other destroyer carriers. 20 Drovers just seem disgustingly powerful because they can stack their fire-power over ludicrous ranges, like most carriers and unlike gunboats. Combine with a system that boosts number of fighters, per wing, and a cheap cost to deploy it just exacerbates the ability to stack fighters just like you can with other carriers, but more.

Which isn't the drovers fault, it's more of a symptom of how carriers work right now.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 17, 2020, 03:47:27 AM
The problem with the Enforcer is not the Enforcer, it is the Hammerhead. Nerf outliers, don't power creep things that are fine.
Is it, though? The Hammerhead is just about the only vanilla combat destroyer that I will snap up once I have started transitioning to a cruiser/capital fleet. And unlike the Drover, the Hammerhead doesn't obsolete anything of a larger ship class - it is good, but not a substitute for a real cruiser.

Either the other destroyers that aren't named "Drover" should be brought up to the level of the Hammerhead or there needs to be a change in the combat mechanics to make destroyers generally better before the nerf hammer is brought down on the Hammerhead. Otherwise, all that would be accomplished is making a marginalized ship class even more marginalized.

Why do you like the hammerhead so much? It doesn't have anything special about it. The only destroyer* worth carrying to late(r)-game is the Medusa. It has the necessary ship system to survive against Cruisers, and with the right backup, it can even harrass some capitals. But a hammerhead? It'll get rekt as soon as it approaches any half-decent ship.

*The Drover is only so good because of fighter spam. :-( I think it should be nerfed by changing its fighter slots (or at least one of them) to a fixed unchangable fighter type. If you can fill up a whole fleet of Drovers with Sparks, then it's disturbingly OP.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 17, 2020, 04:00:16 AM
Well in fairness sparks are a reward for fighting the remnants.  ;D
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 17, 2020, 04:33:28 AM
The only destroyer* worth carrying to late(r)-game is the Medusa. It has the necessary ship system to survive against Cruisers, and with the right backup, it can even harass some capitals.

Medusa's ship system gives it the potential to survive and be useful in cruiser/capital dominated battlefield (under player control), but AI is fairly incompetent at using the skimmer.

Hammerhead is a simple brick of stats with a straightforward system - point to the enemy and activate system, done. Which makes it the most AI-compatible direct combat DE by far. Any other DE can defeat it under player control, but that involves more advanced tactics than what AI uses.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 17, 2020, 04:38:24 AM
I can use midline destroyers as cannon fodder for capital ship battles fairly easily and they do quite well. Hightech destroyers are more survivable but without missiles struggle to actually do much other then nipping at the sides of a big battle, and for far less time before CR degradation.

Low tech destroyers just die, in my opinion. They can't out shoot or really contribute like midline can and can't survive quite like the hightech can. It's a rough spot for them to be in as I can't see much of a role for Enforcers (They are the only proper one, right?) outside of literal cannon fodder of which shields do a better job of that anyway.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Scorpixel on May 17, 2020, 05:10:11 AM
Frontline DDs hardly have much use in larger battles, they're too small to be a threat by themselves, too large to be DP-effective escorts and still easily die to fighters.
Hammerhead and Sunder can still be useful damage dealers where you need them and Medusa is a monster of mobility with great tanking potential, but low techs? They simply lack the mobility needed in those kind of battles, even if they weren't underwhelming a heavy destroyer cannot compete with a cruiser or battleship, nor do frigate-cleaning duty.

Frigates are simply better suited, Lasher can find good use and stay alive when deployed in time, and even Kite of all things can be sent in swarms as either salamander spammers or torpedo boats.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 17, 2020, 05:16:45 AM
Low tech destroyers just die, in my opinion. They can't out shoot or really contribute like midline can and can't survive quite like the hightech can. It's a rough spot for them to be in as I can't see much of a role for Enforcers (They are the only proper one, right?) outside of literal cannon fodder of which shields do a better job of that anyway.
Yea it's the only one. And it seems its role is an escort ship for even slower ships because of good arcs for Flaks but you might as well get Monitor then. As others have noted, you either take SO or end up with a meh ship (there are better SO destroyers anyway). 700 range weapons and it'll never kill anything, 1000 range weapons and you have a worse Eagle that's not worth its price. Lastly, its system is horrible for a destroyer. You have a ship that's not super slow but still needs to burn drive in in order to do something, but since it's faster than other Burn drive ships it goes too deep and then dies because of its crap shield and eh armor. Don't get me wrong, I like the design of the ship, it's certainly unique, it just needs something fresh to get out of the outdated group.

EDIT: Since the Enforcer is rarely used, the low tech progression goes from Lasher immediately to the Dominator, which is crazy. 5 DP ship to 25 DP.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 17, 2020, 05:25:14 AM
Yeah the burn drive is really nice for the cruisers and capitals as it helps them hound down and peruse a fleeing enemy. Two onslaughts set to eliminate a radiant battleship can hound it to the end of the maps as it never gets a chance to properly vent under the unending attack. And even they are ripped open by a reaper torpedo or two.

The enforcer still struggles as an escort as unlike with other games, or even real life ships, the enforcer can barely cover a third of a friendly ship it tries to protect which forces you to make every ship capable of defending themselves. Which makes escort duty redundant in my opinion.

The smaller lashers at least are like little hammerheads, not that I'd bring a frigate to a big line battle, but as with the luddic path a swarm of angry frigates is NOT to be underestimated. Not personally a fan of frigates due to CR timers and the 30 ship limit, but that's just the scale of fleet battles I tend to and like fighting.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 17, 2020, 05:27:37 AM
Yeah the burn drive is really nice for the cruisers and capitals as it helps them hound down and peruse a fleeing enemy. Two onslaughts set to eliminate a radiant battleship can hound it to the end of the maps as it never gets a chance to properly vent under the unending attack. And even they are ripped open by a reaper torpedo or two.


I fail to believe that you can use onslaughts to effectively kill Radiants. Radiants seem pretty much designed to counter Low-Tech ships. I used to test Radiants out for fun and on Autopilot, it can wipe out entire hedge detachments (although that was with a custom weapons layout, but still...)

The only destroyer* worth carrying to late(r)-game is the Medusa. It has the necessary ship system to survive against Cruisers, and with the right backup, it can even harass some capitals.

Medusa's ship system gives it the potential to survive and be useful in cruiser/capital dominated battlefield (under player control), but AI is fairly incompetent at using the skimmer.

Hammerhead is a simple brick of stats with a straightforward system - point to the enemy and activate system, done. Which makes it the most AI-compatible direct combat DE by far. Any other DE can defeat it under player control, but that involves more advanced tactics than what AI uses.

Odd. I have not had major negative experiences with the AI piloting Medusa ships. What loadout did you use for your medusas? I like using them to harrass/disable carriers of enemy fleets, I've never been let down by them. They're usually not (very) good at attacking capital ships, but I think its quite rare for destroyers to be able to take on capitals anyway.

The reason why I don't think the hammerhead is so great, is because the weapon arcs aren't wide, and mostly the weapons are all on its front, so the whole ship needs to turn in order for its weapons to be able to target its enemy, which is a big inherent weakness.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 17, 2020, 05:36:37 AM
Yeah the burn drive is really nice for the cruisers and capitals as it helps them hound down and peruse a fleeing enemy. Two onslaughts set to eliminate a radiant battleship can hound it to the end of the maps as it never gets a chance to properly vent under the unending attack. And even they are ripped open by a reaper torpedo or two.


I fail to believe that you can use onslaughts to effectively kill Radiants. Radiants seem pretty much designed to counter Low-Tech ships. I used to test Radiants out for fun and on Autopilot, it can wipe out entire hedge detachments (although that was with a custom weapons layout, but still...)

Admittedly it's not like I was using stock loadouts, and I never tried to fight an even battle, and I supported them with legions, but I have a video of me hunting down Ordo fleets.
Spoiler
https://youtu.be/x19IwPe56VI
[close]

Audio balancing is "Luddite" but it's good fun to just rampage through Remnant fleets.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Mondaymonkey on May 17, 2020, 06:17:08 AM
Quote
Odd. I have not had major negative experiences with the AI piloting Medusa ships.

Well, I do. And it is wide.

Surprisingly, well-equipped medusa is effective against a larger targets, especially if you give order to attack single target to more than one medusa. They are just bigger wolfs and will flank slower targets, dealing all the damage they can, and it's quite big for a destroyer. Using the phase lances in combination with needlers can be devastating against most capitals. That is a slow process, tho'.

But when it comes to a smaller enemies, AI medusas sometimes dive into the enemy line, loosing all the system charges and get surrounded by a smaller enemies. And the shield is not wide, and an armor is sub-par. Usually death.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 17, 2020, 07:16:54 AM
Yeah the burn drive is really nice for the cruisers and capitals as it helps them hound down and peruse a fleeing enemy. Two onslaughts set to eliminate a radiant battleship can hound it to the end of the maps as it never gets a chance to properly vent under the unending attack. And even they are ripped open by a reaper torpedo or two.


I fail to believe that you can use onslaughts to effectively kill Radiants. Radiants seem pretty much designed to counter Low-Tech ships. I used to test Radiants out for fun and on Autopilot, it can wipe out entire hedge detachments (although that was with a custom weapons layout, but still...)

Admittedly it's not like I was using stock loadouts, and I never tried to fight an even battle, and I supported them with legions, but I have a video of me hunting down Ordo fleets.
Spoiler
https://youtu.be/x19IwPe56VI
[close]

Audio balancing is "Luddite" but it's good fun to just rampage through Remnant fleets.

Thanks for sharing the video! Was interesting to see everything I've ever learned about the game flipped upside down! Would've expected a hands down Remnant victory there tbh. Congrats on the epic win!!

Don't think there's much I can add other than that though, it seems that we are playing with different settings for max DP, so that can have sweeping changes on the game-play. (At least I don't remember being able to add 300 DP against a Remnant Ordo) I think the highest DP I've ever seen was 240 or so, but then that did involve a star fortress, but recently I've been playing modded, so Remnants end up being 100/100 relation


Well, I do. And it is wide.

Surprisingly, well-equipped medusa is effective against a larger targets, especially if you give order to attack single target to more than one medusa. They are just bigger wolfs and will flank slower targets, dealing all the damage they can, and it's quite big for a destroyer. Using the phase lances in combination with needlers can be devastating against most capitals. That is a slow process, tho'.

But when it comes to a smaller enemies, AI medusas sometimes dive into the enemy line, loosing all the system charges and get surrounded by a smaller enemies. And the shield is not wide, and an armor is sub-par. Usually death.

Seems like we think alike:

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/eLzKEKy.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 17, 2020, 07:27:44 AM
Enforcer seems weaker than other peer destroyers.  I use them only very early in the game when I have nothing better, and they are everywhere (pirates use them, along with Mules and Shrike-P).  They are not as cheap as Shrikes.

Let's see how Hammerhead works after chainguns get weaker (if they get weaker).  Non SO-Hammerhead is solid but nothing special (although it slaughters Enforcer).

Drover epitomizes what I dislike about carriers most since 0.8a.  It is the perfect all fighters, full defense, no guns ship in the game.  Its presence makes me want the old pre-0.8 fighters-as-ships back, despite the warts, just so carriers can be armed as warships again (without it being a bad choice).  Astral is another.  It does not need guns at all, just bombers.  If I want to spam fighters, I use mostly Drovers like others.  (I occasionally use Mora as an improvised exploration ship, a carrier with enough OP to afford Surveying Equipment and other campaign mods.)  Even with a bad skill set, a fleet of Drovers (with Sparks) can take out an Ordos.  I just cannot take on four at the same time like the more min-maxed carrier fleets.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 17, 2020, 09:12:54 AM
Since the Enforcer is rarely used, the low tech progression goes from Lasher immediately to the Dominator, which is crazy. 5 DP ship to 25 DP.

This is worth highlighting. It seems very wrong.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 17, 2020, 09:16:38 AM
Medusa's ship system gives it the potential to survive and be useful in cruiser/capital dominated battlefield (under player control), but AI is fairly incompetent at using the skimmer.

Hammerhead is a simple brick of stats with a straightforward system - point to the enemy and activate system, done. Which makes it the most AI-compatible direct combat DE by far. Any other DE can defeat it under player control, but that involves more advanced tactics than what AI uses.

Odd. I have not had major negative experiences with the AI piloting Medusa ships. What loadout did you use for your medusas? I like using them to harrass/disable carriers of enemy fleets, I've never been let down by them. They're usually not (very) good at attacking capital ships, but I think its quite rare for destroyers to be able to take on capitals anyway.

The reason why I don't think the hammerhead is so great, is because the weapon arcs aren't wide, and mostly the weapons are all on its front, so the whole ship needs to turn in order for its weapons to be able to target its enemy, which is a big inherent weakness.

With non-SO Hammerhead (SO AI is a problem of it's own) - in general I use same direct approach to combat as AI, just better (at range and flux management as well as selective armor tanking).

With Medusa the gap is much more, skimmer adds many options that AI doesn't use. AI only uses skimmer to retreat or advance, without any further detail. I use skimmer to dodge kinetics (needlers are easy, sabots take practice), to vent just beyond enemy's reach (either via skimming out of range or out of slowly rotating turret arcs), to get behind the enemy, to bypass omni shield by skimming through target (more useful for Wolf), to counter phase frigates by instant rotation, etc... Whatever the situation, skimmer is at least part of solution. In comparison,  looking at AI Medusa is just sad.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Goumindong on May 17, 2020, 12:55:22 PM
The only low tech ships that really stop having a place are the frigates. Enforcers are a little bit unwieldly late game because burn drive isn't that great(good at chasing enemies!) but any source of flack and kinetic pressure has high value. And the four missile slots give it a LOT of immediate punch that should not be discounted.

I like putting blast doors, reinforced bulkheads and heavy armor on them for hilarious tankiness and not even caring if they die. 1 Harpoon and 3 Sabots are pretty ideal especially as you add more enforcers. Double HVD or Arbalest or HAC or whatever kinetic weapons you have that sum to around 400 flux to fire. Plus 1 to two flack.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: FooF on May 17, 2020, 07:27:54 PM
The conundrum I'm in right now is that the Enforcer is really balanced in a vacuum but from a meta-game perspective, isn't competitive. Given a Hammerhead, Sunder, Medusa, Enforcer, or even a Mule, I peck the Enforcer last. I think I pick the Shrike over it, too. Why is that?

1.) Its flux stats create (for me) a binary choice: SO with Heavy MGs and Assault CGs or a long-range variant of HVD and Mauler. Anything in between is too flux hungry for its flux profile.

2.) It gets overloaded too quickly because tanking hits with shields is very inefficient (but the AI is bad at this).

3.) It's slow. Burn Drive is good but the normal speed of an Enforcer is a liability.

4.) Poor logistical profile

If I limit it to these 4, and they are in the order of importance to me, #1 is the true culprit and the other three are distant runners-up. The Enforcer just can't sustain itself in a fight and by all appearances, it should be the victor of any straight-up, drag-out fight. It's supposed to be the bully of the Destroyer line-up but it can't actually bully anything. The Hammerhead and Sunder out-DPS it (via ship system) and the Medusa could probably straight-up fight it, too (but why would it when it can fly circles around an Enforcer?). The only Destroyers that an Enforcer wins against straight-up is the Shrike and Mule.

I think the Low-Tech doctrine should be (and for the most part is) "Bully of anything smaller but loses handidly against a bigger bully." The Dominator is sort of in this position in the Cruiser line-up. The Dom does straight-up beat an Eagle/Falcon/Apogee for the most part by virtue of having more-efficient/longer-ranged Large Ballistics. But, it gets creamed by an Onslaught or Conquest.

Why not give the Enforcer a single Large Ballistic in the center Medium? Put a Hellbore or Mk. IX in there. It would also keep the Enforcer useful late game because they'd hit a critical mass of firepower (but you'd pay for it due to their logistical profile).

(Alternate idea, make the XIV Battlegroup Enforcer the one with the Large Ballistic, so that both exist)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 17, 2020, 08:43:22 PM
Hmm, I think my issue with having a large ballistic on an Enforcer is that the large ballistics are usually less efficient than the mediums, so it still wouldn't have the flux to fire it. Maybe a Hellbore would do well there as its very nicely efficient, but that tunes the ship's kinetic/HE balance a bit off. A large would bring the "standard" range from 800 to 900 which would help. Maybe a single Mk IX as the ship's only offensive gun (+2 flaks) could let it win against light ships who can't tank the rounds on armor/hull.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SafariJohn on May 17, 2020, 08:46:37 PM
TBH, I kind of think low tech should be weaker than midline and high tech. They are widely used because they are cheaper and more reliable for system patrols (who don't care about fuel use), while being nearly as good as modern military ships (midline/high tech).

Battlegroup XIV skins are low tech upgraded to Domain military standards at great expense — Onslaught XIV costs 22.5% more than a Paragon! And (in player hands) fights like it!


But if low tech needs a buff I will repeat my suggestion to allow cancelling Burn Drive and teach the AI to do it. A better engage/disengage profile (yes, the AI disengages with Burn Drive) is effectively a flux and armor buff.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 17, 2020, 09:25:43 PM
You could swap two of its medium ballistic mounts for medium missile mounts. Missiles are the great equalizer in the flu war.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: MesoTroniK on May 17, 2020, 09:26:51 PM
It already has *four* small missile hardpoints. This is a prodigious arsenal for a destroyer, insane rocket and torpedo volleys. Or enough Harpoons or Sabots to screw over a few ships before running dry.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 17, 2020, 10:02:25 PM
It already has *four* small missile hardpoints. This is a prodigious arsenal for a destroyer, insane rocket and torpedo volleys. Or enough Harpoons or Sabots to screw over a few ships before running dry.

The drover has 4 small missile mounts, and I've never seen anyone describe it as having 'an insane rocket and torpedo volley'.

Missiles are definitely very good. The idea is to make the enforcer good. It has such bad shields and flux stats that I think it needs to missile help to be decent. Small missiles just don't have the ammo to be a significant part of an arsenal, they are only every augmenting the weapons. 2 sabot pods and 2 harpoon pods will kill one, maaaaybe 2 destroyers. Medium missiles with expanded racks can last through an early game fight and actually be a significant part of the weapon setup rather than one or two random kills (or more likely wasted shots). You could switch the 4 smalls to 2 mediums as an alternative, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make the ship worth using. The idea is just to lean into the low tech dependance on missiles to compensate for bad flux stats rather than giving it better flux stats or shields. 5 medium ballistic mounts are just wasted on it IMO.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 17, 2020, 11:00:00 PM
I like 4 small missile mounts for torpedoes - 8 hammers or 4 reapers is pretty darn good on a destroyer that wants to be near enemy ships like the enforcer does (and the drover wants to stay away). Annihilators are similarly very nice for lots of HE pressure: both are good for SO builds.

For sabot/harpoon, they are the equivalent of a single medium missile but cost double the OP, so if going for that purpose it has equivalent missile firepower to condor or shrike (though I'd always put salamander pod on a condor if I have the option).
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 17, 2020, 11:40:27 PM
Annihilators are similarly very nice for lots of HE pressure: both are good for SO builds.

AI mistakes them for self sufficient long range weapons, wasting all ammo before it gets decent opportunity to fire (which would be after driving enemy flux up with kinetic guns).
Though I guess it's a smaller problem for SO rather than conventional builds.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Goumindong on May 17, 2020, 11:53:49 PM
I like 4 small missile mounts for torpedoes - 8 hammers or 4 reapers is pretty darn good on a destroyer that wants to be near enemy ships like the enforcer does (and the drover wants to stay away). Annihilators are similarly very nice for lots of HE pressure: both are good for SO builds.

For sabot/harpoon, they are the equivalent of a single medium missile but cost double the OP, so if going for that purpose it has equivalent missile firepower to condor or shrike (though I'd always put salamander pod on a condor if I have the option).

Additionally, 16 OP on the 110 OP* enforcer that does not expect to fit 16+ OP worth of fighters is significantly different than 16 OP on the 70 OP drover that is expected to fit 16+ OP worth of fighters

The enforcer is a pretty decent ship.

*15 more than a hammerhead or medusa!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 18, 2020, 12:45:59 AM
I really dislike the large ballistic idea for Enforcer, it wouldn't solve anything.

So I took it out for a spin just to remember how it actually plays and dear god it's even worse than I recall. Just putting 2 Heavy autocannons and a Heavy Mortar makes it *** itself with flux. That's 3 out of 5! medium slots and it's using only common weapons. I even gave it flux distributor and hardened shields, but then you barely have any OP for missiles. It's so *** bad, at least this build should be close to flux efficient. 4 Arbalests and 1 Heavy mortar as an all-in offensive cheaper build also fails as it's 200 flux above it's dissipation with the shield down. You seriously can't do a thing with this brick without SO... I get that it's low tech, so it can't be crazy on flux, but it has FIVE mediums, shouldn't that mean something? Like how ships get extra OP for each mount they have.

And how would I be overjoyed if the Burn drive canceling comes back, damn that was so satisfying to use. It would fix the biggest annoyance I have with Enforcer.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: MesoTroniK on May 18, 2020, 03:11:39 AM
It already has *four* small missile hardpoints. This is a prodigious arsenal for a destroyer, insane rocket and torpedo volleys. Or enough Harpoons or Sabots to screw over a few ships before running dry.

The drover has 4 small missile mounts, and I've never seen anyone describe it as having 'an insane rocket and torpedo volley'.

Missiles are definitely very good. The idea is to make the enforcer good. It has such bad shields and flux stats that I think it needs to missile help to be decent. Small missiles just don't have the ammo to be a significant part of an arsenal, they are only every augmenting the weapons. 2 sabot pods and 2 harpoon pods will kill one, maaaaybe 2 destroyers. Medium missiles with expanded racks can last through an early game fight and actually be a significant part of the weapon setup rather than one or two random kills (or more likely wasted shots). You could switch the 4 smalls to 2 mediums as an alternative, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make the ship worth using. The idea is just to lean into the low tech dependance on missiles to compensate for bad flux stats rather than giving it better flux stats or shields. 5 medium ballistic mounts are just wasted on it IMO.
The Drover is stupidly OP, I pretend it doesn't even exist when balancing. Because as soon as you think it does, then it invalids *many* other things in the game. Also, the Drover can't do close combat nor has guns to back up and segue with its missiles. I cannot even believe I even have to point out things like this to be honest.

Enforcer, with two med missiles instead of four smalls. Would be almost as broken as the Drover.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Goumindong on May 18, 2020, 04:04:31 AM
Why would you put 2 heavy autocannons and a mortar on it? Like. Why not arbalests? Or HVD? Why go with the highest flux usage medium kinetic?

You can put 4 HMG and an assault chaingun on it with SO. You can put flack on it which will reduce its shield flux usage while also not consistently firing. You could put lower flux but higher efficient weapons. The thing has 15 more OP than a hammerhead.

It has almost as much OP as a falcon. Use it!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 18, 2020, 04:06:41 AM
Yeah when is it a good idea to use a Heavy Autocannon over the other choices? They look really cool with the big triple barrelled battleship style cannons, but their performance in my opinion really doesn't match it's costs.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Havoc on May 18, 2020, 04:15:55 AM
my problem with the enforcer is
it is good on the paper but it overloads before it can do much damage.

with lasher I can dodge with strafe
enforcer is just a big slow hitbox

something like evade burndrive to the side would be better
than rammingburndrivebutIamtooslowevanwiththat
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 18, 2020, 04:38:03 AM
Not that we should go too far down the rabbit hole of balancing mind. It's already to have bad options as low tech destroyers might just be too conflicting of design perimeters.

Just so long as the enforcer isn't unusable or worse then civilian ships. Also the lasher, what's the word on that ship because it doesn't feel like a low tech ship at all, right? It's easily beaten by the centurion for being a heavily armoured frigate and feels far more like a midline bullet chucker then any kind of low tech design.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 18, 2020, 04:44:27 AM
Why would you put 2 heavy autocannons and a mortar on it? Like. Why not arbalests? Or HVD? Why go with the highest flux usage medium kinetic?

You can put 4 HMG and an assault chaingun on it with SO. You can put flack on it which will reduce its shield flux usage while also not consistently firing. You could put lower flux but higher efficient weapons. The thing has 15 more OP than a hammerhead.

It has almost as much OP as a falcon. Use it!
Because they're common, have higher DPS and range? I agree that they're not good but I'm probably not gonna spend elite weapons like HVDs and Maulers on an Enforcer (that's the combo I usually went with and it was just meh, I'd almost always take Falcon or Eagle instead of it). And OP in this case doesn't mean ***, it has way too many mounts with way too low flux stats, you'd need 40 vents on this thing to even be an ok ship.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2020, 05:33:12 AM
Occasionally, I use Heavy Autocannons on Enforcers because I run out of Arbalests after using them on everything else.

I use mostly Annihilators on Enforcers because I can buy them on the Open Market and AI uses them to block incoming enemy fire (probably by accident).  Annihilators work well for brawling, until they run out which is not very long.

As for Drover, it could probably be built to brawl, but with its system and stats, why bother?  Better to min-max its fighter capability (which is why someone uses a carrier).  And do not get me started on the (entry-level carrier) Condor.  With low OP, junk mounts and stats, if I want anything better than Talons, I need to sack weapons.  (That was not a problem when Talons were 8 OP gods worth 0 OP in that first 0.8a release.)  While Drover can use all of its OP to pump up stats and grab hullmods after fighters, Condor needs most of its OP just to get good fighters.

Not fond of Lasher.  It is a SO machine gun boat.  It seems too slow without SO.  Prefer Centurion over Lasher for steady non-SO brawling.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 18, 2020, 07:40:13 AM
It already has *four* small missile hardpoints. This is a prodigious arsenal for a destroyer, insane rocket and torpedo volleys. Or enough Harpoons or Sabots to screw over a few ships before running dry.

The drover has 4 small missile mounts, and I've never seen anyone describe it as having 'an insane rocket and torpedo volley'.

Missiles are definitely very good. The idea is to make the enforcer good. It has such bad shields and flux stats that I think it needs to missile help to be decent. Small missiles just don't have the ammo to be a significant part of an arsenal, they are only every augmenting the weapons. 2 sabot pods and 2 harpoon pods will kill one, maaaaybe 2 destroyers. Medium missiles with expanded racks can last through an early game fight and actually be a significant part of the weapon setup rather than one or two random kills (or more likely wasted shots). You could switch the 4 smalls to 2 mediums as an alternative, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make the ship worth using. The idea is just to lean into the low tech dependance on missiles to compensate for bad flux stats rather than giving it better flux stats or shields. 5 medium ballistic mounts are just wasted on it IMO.
The Drover is stupidly OP, I pretend it doesn't even exist when balancing. Because as soon as you think it does, then it invalids *many* other things in the game. Also, the Drover can't do close combat nor has guns to back up and segue with its missiles. I cannot even believe I even have to point out things like this to be honest.

Enforcer, with two med missiles instead of four smalls. Would be almost as broken as the Drover.

Yeah the drover can be OP for a few load outs, but because of its ship system and sparks, not the missile slots. Personally I think it's mostly an issue with the way fighters stack. If 4 small missiles was some very powerful mount combination for destroyers, I would expect drover loadouts to revolve around or at least feature the missiles, but the only time I've even seen the missile slots mentioned was people saying they left them empty to get more OP for fighters.

Vigilance has a medium missile for 5 DP, kite has 2 smalls for 2 DP, wolf has 2 smalls for 5 DP, Buffalo MK II has 1 medium and 3 smalls for 4 DP, granted it has no shields, mule has 1 composite and 2 smalls. I really don't see how 4 smalls on a destroyer is anything special. If that was a 'prodigious arsenal', why is the enforcer the worst combat destroyer in the game? 4 mediums and 2 smalls on the pirate falcon for 15 DP is a proper 'prodigious arsenal', and that still falls off in late mid game IMO. 2 mediums is quite a bit for 9 DP, but the idea is that it is compensating for how bad the rest of the ship is. Maybe you're right that 2 mediums for 9 DP is a little too much (I'm still not completely convinced though), but 'as OP as the drover' seems very extreme. What about 1 medium and 2 smalls?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 18, 2020, 07:54:05 AM
Welp I completely forgot Enforcer is 9 DP... Well then just increase its cost and make it a proper destroyer, problem solved.

EDIT: I was curious so I went to see the shield stats of other low-tech ships. Every single other one has a 1 shield/dmg ratio, even the bloody carriers, yet this gem here is the exception. It's not even a glass cannon. But someone will still say that it's a decent ship while clearly it has many problems.

From its description: ''Tough to beat in a destroyer to destroyer fight'' now who are we exactly kidding here?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2020, 09:32:32 AM
From its description: ''Tough to beat in a destroyer to destroyer fight'' now who are we exactly kidding here?
That was true in the past.  Enforcer took a fall since 0.8a, and that part codex has not changed since.  On the other hand, Hammerhead was a miserable pile of secrets with low OP and a self-destructive ship system (ammo feeder did not have high enough flux discount if any) before 0.8a, then it became good since 0.8a.  In effect, Hammerhead and Enforcer swapped places in power.

Skills were stronger before 0.8a, and Enforcer could support more firepower back then than today.

P.S.  Drover is almost as elite as Medusa at 12 DP.  Almost because Drover can be nicked of the common midline bundle while Medusa is a singleton blueprint that can only be robbed from Tri-Tachyon (or found if you are lucky).

P.P.S.  A 4 or 5 DP frigate can comfortably support two small weapons.  A destroyer that costs twice as much should be able to support four lights or two mediums.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 18, 2020, 12:28:25 PM
Enforcer stats haven't changed iirc, but the tricks it relied on has. Double stacking engine boosters with no range penalty? Gone. High DPS on the long ranged ballistics? Gone. +30% OP that gave it a bigger benefit than other destroyers because of its high base stats? Gone. It used to have enough OP to exploit the exploits, but those exploits are now gone.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2020, 01:00:38 PM
Some relevant changes from the (as yet non-public) patch notes for the next release:
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front
   Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Enforcer:
   Increased armor to 900 (was: 750)
   Increased hull to 6000 (was: 5000)
   Reduced shield flux/damage to 1 (was: 1.2)   

(And a moderate Assault Chaingun nerf, which in itself is an indirect Hammerhead nerf...)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 18, 2020, 01:09:27 PM
Oh nice, I'm liking all the changes there. Glad to see Enforcer will be a real tank now :)

EDIT:
Quote
Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Hold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Wyvern on May 18, 2020, 01:23:02 PM
Oh, nice.  Nice simple changes to the Enforcer - let me go just edit those into my starsector data files...
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Goumindong on May 18, 2020, 01:54:22 PM
Some relevant changes from the (as yet non-public) patch notes for the next release:
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front
   Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Enforcer:
   Increased armor to 900 (was: 750)
   Increased hull to 6000 (was: 5000)
   Reduced shield flux/damage to 1 (was: 1.2)   

(And a moderate Assault Chaingun nerf, which in itself is an indirect Hammerhead nerf...)

But there are patch notes! Half life 3 confirmed
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 18, 2020, 01:55:22 PM
Now that is a brick of a destroyer. I didn't actually expect doubling down on armour. It will be enough to make weapons with less than a 100 hit strength ineffectual even when the armour has been stripped.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2020, 02:00:22 PM
I am more interested in the shield power-up.  Maybe now I do not need to pump capacitors to the max and/or get Hardened Shields just so it can squeeze off a shot before incoming fire shuts it down.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 18, 2020, 02:09:34 PM
Oh nice, I'm liking all the changes there. Glad to see Enforcer will be a real tank now :)

EDIT:
Quote
Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Hold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?
That would be a rather noticeable nerf.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2020, 02:10:58 PM
EDIT:
Quote
Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Hold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?

(Nothing to worry about, just a 1-pixel-off alignment issue with where the hardpoint was located on the sprite.)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Wyvern on May 18, 2020, 02:14:39 PM
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front

On further consideration, this change actually concerns me - I generally use those back two slots for point defense, and not having full PD coverage (or having to further sacrifice damage output by mounting PD in the front turrets) is a potentially serious issue for AI-controlled Hammerheads.  (The AI has no conception of "That missile is not actually a threat because I can just take it on shields", so it'll try to back off from, say, pilums, keeping its shield up the whole time and generally handling the attack poorly.)

As an alternative, I suggest swapping the rear two turrets to energy instead of hybrid, and keeping the firing arcs the same.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 18, 2020, 02:20:45 PM
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front

On further consideration, this change actually concerns me - I generally use those back two slots for point defense, and not having full PD coverage (or having to further sacrifice damage output by mounting PD in the front turrets) is a potentially serious issue for AI-controlled Hammerheads.  (The AI has no conception of "That missile is not actually a threat because I can just take it on shields", so it'll try to back off from, say, pilums, keeping its shield up the whole time and generally handling the attack poorly.)

As an alternative, I suggest swapping the rear two turrets to energy instead of hybrid, and keeping the firing arcs the same.

I'd disagree with this. If the AI reacting to the missiles is such a problem, just mount forward facing PD. It's a fair trade off.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 18, 2020, 02:35:00 PM
I think the Enforcer changes look good - its a low powered brick, but now its brickiness is very bricky.

...

That sentence really got away from me huh.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Nick XR on May 18, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
Sounds like well reasoned changes!

@Thaago, that was an excellent detailed breakdown of the Enforcer's problems a few pages back. 
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 18, 2020, 03:10:38 PM
I would not want rear Hammerhead mounts changed to Energy.  That means I either need all four small mounts dedicated to beam PD (for Salamander defense) or get Extended Shields for full 360 shields.  The rear two mounts are Vulcans for anti-Salamander defense.  I think Thaago uses them for dual LGs on SO Hammerheads.

The only time when I care about rear mounts going forward is if I try HVD/Mauler/4x Tac Laser loadout.  If I do not use that loadout, I rely on the rear mounts for missile defense provided by Vulcans.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: FooF on May 18, 2020, 03:35:34 PM
Yeah, I like the double-down on the armor/HP. The better shield efficiency will also indirectly help its flux profile, too. Those changes notwithstanding, I still don't foresee using Enforcers as "filler" (non-officer'd) ships in my fleet over say a Hammerhead or Sunder. The other two are just more versatile.

However, I'll adjust the stats in my current game and see how the Enforcer feels, especially with Heavy Armor and/or some skills. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. :)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Eji1700 on May 18, 2020, 06:44:15 PM
Some relevant changes from the (as yet non-public) patch notes for the next release:
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front
   Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Enforcer:
   Increased armor to 900 (was: 750)
   Increased hull to 6000 (was: 5000)
   Reduced shield flux/damage to 1 (was: 1.2)   

(And a moderate Assault Chaingun nerf, which in itself is an indirect Hammerhead nerf...)

Very glad to see this.

I don't know about you, but in my eyes the hammerhead is pretty close to being right on the mark for what it should be.  It's a ship that i'm never sad to have, has quite a few viable builds, and it does whatever job you're putting it to well, as long as it's one it was designed to do.  I'm glad to see you aren't kneecapping it and instead just focusing on the Chaingun build being too good, which does seem to mostly deal with the weapon itself.

So with that said, i've tried a couple of mostly low tech runs and I have a few spots that i've found trouble with:

1. It feels like the "point" of low tech is "easy to acquire/amass/field/upkeep" compared to the others. 

In theory. 

There's a lot of reasons to point to this (especially flavor) but the simple problem is that this just isn't a balance factor in practice. I've talked about it before, but acquiring a brand new/near brand new midline is trivially easy compared to any low tech ship, and it seems to hurt their niche a ton.  Why would i field condors when I can get drovers?  Sure i've found uses for them, but the "advantage" just doesn't feel like it.

I'm generally annoyed with how easy it is to get a paragon and upkeep given how insanely performant it is, but at least getting a fleet of them is going to probably take you into the end game, but really if you're running condor's at any point past the start it's probably because like me you're trying to do something in theme.

2. Trash units aren't worth it by design.

So while i might have condor woes, at least i can break them out, load them up with pirhanas + LRMs, and go pirate station hunting.  It's a nice little niche that I could use drovers for, but at least it's something they can do well, being the in game equivalent of a trebuchet.

In comparison, i've just stopped getting the hound and cerberus.  Maybe there's a way to make them work, but I'm pretty sure it's just not worth the effort.  Ironically low tech ships take a hell of a lot more care/effort to get off the ground, and not just because of the AI.

The way the game handles salvage/supplies/restoration/dmods really really hurts the idea of junker/low tech fleets in general.  While you might think that you can take 15 cheap and pristine cerberus and keep them running easier than 5 omens(or whatever high tech) you're basically wrong.  The cerb's will die over and over, getting worse and worse (while already starting off worse), and the cost to repair them is insane when you consider that. 

As is my constant torch, i'm really hoping there's some rework to hull salvaging and the economy that stems from it, because to me it's by far the biggest factor in making low tech just not worth it (and god willing i ever get some actual vacation i'm thinking a nice hobby programming practice project might just be modding it myself so i can put up or shut up on all of this)

3. There is no "value" trading.

Consider Mount and Blade(any of them), which has something of a similar problem.  If i managed to take my 30 dirty peasants and wipe out an army of 150 elite troops thanks to my brilliant tactics and unabashed difficulty dropping, I've done something cool.  But why?  The resources that limit me from having my own army of 150+ elite troops are basically a joke once you learn what you're doing, and they're not going to take as much effort to use, nor die as easily.  The only real use-case for that kind of skill is when you're in the early game and might get jumped by a larger army (which is often again because of a lack of skill as you should just make your army faster than larger ones). 

The one major payoff though is the ability to take an hold castles (in theory, depending on the game) with fewer troops and  troop losses, which since getting more troops and training them is the only real resource by mid game, is nice.

There is basically 0 equivalent in star sector.  Managing to line up and outfit a buffalo 2 squad to take out a cruiser is SO much more satisfying that watching a paragon autopilot through an army, and yet there's really no reward or encouragement for it.  Maybe that example is extreme, but if you throw in operation costs and the like (and time spent outfitting bufflo 4404 from your replacement pool), it's just so so much easier to run high tech/midline stuff instead, and it's a shame because some of the most interesting gameplay is had with optimizing the less powerful hulls.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex 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.)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SafariJohn 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Eji1700 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).

Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave 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?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand 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?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Havoc on May 19, 2020, 06:00:09 AM
I like the Enforcer changes
hope ai can also use the tank like an tank
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: FooF 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. 
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Eji1700 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave 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.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2020, 12:06:31 PM
(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?

See bolded part :)


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.

That's pretty much how I see it, yeah. (The speed idea - while interesting! - I think clashes too much with my internal conception of low-tech ships...)


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.

I feel like just looking at the cost ultimately converted into credits misses some important nuance. First of all, 350 extra crew, yeah, that's an extra 35 supplies per month when converted to credits, but it's not supplies that need to be carried with you, it's just credits. That's a pretty important difference. Fuel goes the other way, of course. The Onslaught also is more reslient (less CR to deploy), i.e. has more value when there are ongoing deployments. Ultimately, though, the Onslaught is only 40 DP, which I think is a bit less than its combat potential, which would be the main argument for having its maintenance costs in the same general ballpark as the Paragon...

Not to say it's perfectly balanced, really - more just pointing out that it's not quite so cut and dry as reducing the maintenance cost to credits and doing a comparison.



Not to get lost in this, but it could be easier and still be rewarding?

Seems like generally the easier it is, the less rewarding it'd be, no? Could of course be easier and still be rewarding, but that's an argument that could be made about any ship in any context, I think.

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. 

Ahh, you're saying "low tech", but I'm pretty sure we're still talking about the Buffalo Mk.II, Cerberus, and Hound, that type of stuff, no? The Cerberus and the Hound are combat freighters, not proper combat ships, and the Buffalo Mk.II's primary reason for existing at all is so the pirates have a weak destroyer the player can beat up on easily in the early game.

It's sort of like saying that midline ships are too weak, but actually talking about the Wayfarer and the Hermes - not necessarily wrong, but pretty confusing. When I hear "low tech", I generally assume we're talking about the combat ships, since that's where there is a common thread of design, an intention for them to be combat capable, and so on - it makes sense to talk about "low tech" as a balance category there. While these other ships are technically low tech as well, they just don't belong in the same conversation, if that makes sense. So using "low tech" to cover both types makes the term so broad as to not be very useful, besides indicating the shared aesthetics.

(Not that this is a super important point, just... I feel like using the term like that can really contribute to not being on the same page. Case in point, I didn't immediately realize which ships you were talking about earlier, and I'm not 100% sure in this post, either.)


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

No worries, this isn't derailing things :)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 19, 2020, 12:31:42 PM
(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?

See bolded part :)

Jeez, I am evidently completely blind, my apologies. Thank you for the good news ofc! :)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 19, 2020, 12:38:44 PM
Ultimately, though, the Onslaught is only 40 DP, which I think is a bit less than its combat potential, which would be the main argument for having its maintenance costs in the same general ballpark as the Paragon...

Compared to 40 DP Conquest or 45 DP Odyssey, I don't see how 40 DP Onslaught is undervalued. Both can perform significantly better under player control.

Onslaught may perform better as AI ship, but the only reason for that is being less finesse-oriented.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 19, 2020, 12:45:16 PM
It also comes with the only real guns it should need. Everything else is just support for the Onslaughts Thermal Pulse Cannons!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 19, 2020, 12:56:29 PM
I feel like just looking at the cost ultimately converted into credits misses some important nuance. First of all, 350 extra crew, yeah, that's an extra 35 supplies per month when converted to credits, but it's not supplies that need to be carried with you, it's just credits.
This is true. I can buy supplies on a discount or win them in a battle, but, I can never do anything to reduce the salary. And it's maintenance costs aren't just in the same ballpark as Paragon's, it's more expensive than it. Slightly more without any fuel usage, significantly so with. Same goes for Legion. Onslaught becomes cheaper only after 3 monthly deployments, if I recall correctly.
A small detail I just thought about is that all ships lose CR at the same rate, but not all ships require the same amount of supplies per CR. I don't know how often it affects players (especially new players who don't know it's more efficient to redeploy, instead of burning CR), but it makes burning CR on low-tech ships an expensive endeavour. Well, more expensive than usual CR burning.
"The upload folder is full, please contact the administrator"...
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SafariJohn on May 19, 2020, 12:57:14 PM
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. 

Ahh, you're saying "low tech", but I'm pretty sure we're still talking about the Buffalo Mk.II, Cerberus, and Hound, that type of stuff, no? The Cerberus and the Hound are combat freighters, not proper combat ships, and the Buffalo Mk.II's primary reason for existing at all is so the pirates have a weak destroyer the player can beat up on easily in the early game.

It's sort of like saying that midline ships are too weak, but actually talking about the Wayfarer and the Hermes - not necessarily wrong, but pretty confusing. When I hear "low tech", I generally assume we're talking about the combat ships, since that's where there is a common thread of design, an intention for them to be combat capable, and so on - it makes sense to talk about "low tech" as a balance category there. While these other ships are technically low tech as well, they just don't belong in the same conversation, if that makes sense. So using "low tech" to cover both types makes the term so broad as to not be very useful, besides indicating the shared aesthetics.

(Not that this is a super important point, just... I feel like using the term like that can really contribute to not being on the same page. Case in point, I didn't immediately realize which ships you were talking about earlier, and I'm not 100% sure in this post, either.)

Sounds like a good argument for getting away from the Low Tech/Midline/High Tech dichotomy ;)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2020, 01:19:43 PM
Hmm. I wonder if a "Low Maintenance" hullmod (that would, say, halve the monthly supplies but not the deployment cost) on the Onslaught might not be an interesting change. Or, could slap "High Maintenance" on the Paragon, that could be... fun. And thematic!

"The upload folder is full, please contact the administrator"...

Thanks, fixed that up!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Wyvern on May 19, 2020, 01:36:56 PM
Hmm. I wonder if a "Low Maintenance" hullmod (that would, say, halve the monthly supplies but not the deployment cost) on the Onslaught might not be an interesting change. Or, could slap "High Maintenance" on the Paragon, that could be... fun. And thematic!
I mean... why not both?  Both would be good.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 19, 2020, 01:46:19 PM
High maintenance on Paragon would mean it would cost 120 supplies/month... People here were just pointing out how Onslaught is a bit expensive to maintain vs other capitals, not to outright butcher the Paragon. I agree that it's a very powerful ship but it already has its negatives. It's just the vocal minority on forums/reddit praising the Paragon as the most broken thing in the game.

I'm perfectly fine with the Low maintenance hullmod, it would make sense as there is already tons of crew on the Onslaught being payed so it's kinda baked in let's say.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 19, 2020, 01:50:17 PM
The effect of crew on upkeep is pretty small for frigates and destroyers, but it picks up the pace after that. I'm mostly annoyed because it's pretty blatant which capital ship is the better one, yet it's the other that's more expensive to run.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 19, 2020, 02:10:31 PM
I feel like just looking at the cost ultimately converted into credits misses some important nuance. First of all, 350 extra crew, yeah, that's an extra 35 supplies per month when converted to credits, but it's not supplies that need to be carried with you, it's just credits.
This is true. I can buy supplies on a discount or win them in a battle, but, I can never do anything to reduce the salary. And it's maintenance costs aren't just in the same ballpark as Paragon's, it's more expensive than it. Slightly more without any fuel usage, significantly so with. Same goes for Legion. Onslaught becomes cheaper only after 3 monthly deployments, if I recall correctly.
A small detail I just thought about is that all ships lose CR at the same rate, but not all ships require the same amount of supplies per CR. I don't know how often it affects players (especially new players who don't know it's more efficient to redeploy, instead of burning CR), but it makes burning CR on low-tech ships an expensive endeavour. Well, more expensive than usual CR burning.

You can actually pay less salary.  Just don't fill your ships to minimum crew.  You take a CR penalty, but as long as you stay above 40% you won't have malfunctions.  Its not a good option, but its there if you desperately need to trade some fleet effectiveness for a bit of cash.  I may have some minor experience with this due to playing spacer starts and running the very first real ship I get my hands on under crewed. :)

As for supplies on discount, I feel like there's a lot more places where supplies are more expensive than 100 credits rather than less.  Of course that also means extra supplies you get from your victories can be converted to cash to pay for crew.  To be honest, if you're hauling around capitals, I feel like 2,000 or 5,000 credit differences here and there don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.  Certainly you can spend a lot more credits hunting for a good deal instead of simply buying the closest and immediately heading out to the next bounty or target. Capacity matters, for determining your reach but 4 destroyer class tankers will still get a bunch of Onslaughts and Legions from the core worlds to the edge of the sector and back.  Losing a frigate or a destroyer in battle is a bigger deal in terms of cost.

As for deployment costs assuming base prices, Onslaught ties or beats a Paragon in terms of crew/supply costs at one deployment.

Onslaught's 750 crew is 7500 credits per month, plus 40 supplies valued at 100 credits each is 7500+4000=11,500 credits per month.  1 deployment costs 40 supplies, or effectively another 4,000 credits, so 15,500 for 1 deployment per month.

Paragon's 400 crew is 4000 credits per month, plus 60 supplies, so 4000+6000 = 10,000 credits per month.  1 deployment costs 60 supplies (6,000 credits), so 16,000 credits for 1 deployment per month.  Skills of course affect this, with -25% less supplies being worth more on a ship with a higher supply/crew ratio (like the paragon).  That shifts the base sitting there cost to 10,500 credits versus 8500, so they exactly tie after just 1 deployment.  Onslaught always comes out ahead at 2 deployments a month ignoring fuel and not going over base deployment time.

Hmm. I wonder if a "Low Maintenance" hullmod (that would, say, halve the monthly supplies but not the deployment cost) on the Onslaught might not be an interesting change. Or, could slap "High Maintenance" on the Paragon, that could be... fun. And thematic!

Low maintenance doesn't do much for the Onslaught, since the majority of its upkeep cost comes from crew salaries.  7500+2000 = 9,500 vs normal 11,500.  About a 18% shift in upkeep assuming you're just sitting there in space.  If you're burning to the edge of the map and back, its even less (burn 20, 2 light years per day, 60 light year round trip) is 900 fuel or 22,500 credits.  32,000 vs 34,000 isn't really noticeable I think.

High maintenance on a Paragon is a bigger deal, doubling 6000 credits to 12000 credits per month, so 10,000 to 16,000 for about a 60% shift in upkeep costs (again ignoring fuel).  If you do assume you're flying out to the edge and back over the course of a month (burn 20, 2 light years per day, 60 light year round trip is 1 month), that 600 fuel or 15,000 credits at 25 credit per unit.  In which case 31,000 over 25,000 is only a 24% increase in credit running costs.  Less if deployments are included.

Most players I would imagine would still pay that for a Paragon.  I certainly would.  I mean, I run my end game fleets at full crew.  Which means I'm literally throwing credits out the window and it doesn't really affect my bottom line significantly.  Especially at the point in the game that you can generally acquire a Paragon.  Unless they're composed primarily of Paragons, I don't see most end game fleets caring actually changing composition with that change.  Maybe you throw in an extra destroyer or cruiser freighter for a quad set of Paragons?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SafariJohn on May 19, 2020, 02:47:00 PM
120 su/month would probably make Paragon too expensive to use if you happened upon one early on. It would just be kind of all around weird, IMO.

If you really want to double the supply cost of something on the Paragon, double the CR recovery cost.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 19, 2020, 03:01:30 PM
I would not would want High-Maintenance on Paragon, if its DP stays at 60, especially since the other capitals are not that far behind, except maybe Onslaught (thanks bad turret arcs and dissipation).  Maybe if its DP was lowered to 40, High Maintenance would be easier to stomach, if max battle size remains at 500.

Conquest is decent for its cost, for both playership and AI use.  I use them liberally when Paragon is not an option, due to how common Conquest is.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Histidine on May 19, 2020, 06:33:36 PM
Random comments

- Note re. SCC's table: Heron's skeleton crew is 150, not 90 (thank goodness)

- High Maintenance on Paragon would generate the gut feeling of being prohibitively expensive, unless the hullmod's maintenance cost increase was reduced from 100% to 50% (for 90 supplies/month). This would also help Hyperion, though not in the way(s) it particularly needs.

- Does Onslaught really need to be set at 750 skeleton crew? 600 would be just about right.

A small detail I just thought about is that all ships lose CR at the same rate, but not all ships require the same amount of supplies per CR. I don't know how often it affects players (especially new players who don't know it's more efficient to redeploy, instead of burning CR), but it makes burning CR on low-tech ships an expensive endeavour. Well, more expensive than usual CR burning.
Yeah this is a bit annoying. Low-tech ships have more PPT than high-tech ones, but once PPT runs out low-tech ships burn a hole in your pocket faster than high-tech ones (and worse, do it in a semi-hidden way).
Maybe post-PPT CR degradation should be a multiple of CR % spent per deployment? Although that risks having weird effects on a few ships (e.g. with Hyperion's 40% CR to deploy)...
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 19, 2020, 06:35:10 PM
The effect of crew on upkeep is pretty small for frigates and destroyers, but it picks up the pace after that. I'm mostly annoyed because it's pretty blatant which capital ship is the better one, yet it's the other that's more expensive to run.

I wish that chart was shocking to me. The second you hit Cruisers or higher Low tech starts to feel like a credit toilet.

I feel like just looking at the cost ultimately converted into credits misses some important nuance. First of all, 350 extra crew, yeah, that's an extra 35 supplies per month when converted to credits, but it's not supplies that need to be carried with you, it's just credits. That's a pretty important difference. Fuel goes the other way, of course. The Onslaught also is more reslient (less CR to deploy), i.e. has more value when there are ongoing deployments. Ultimately, though, the Onslaught is only 40 DP, which I think is a bit less than its combat potential, which would be the main argument for having its maintenance costs in the same general ballpark as the Paragon...

Not to say it's perfectly balanced, really - more just pointing out that it's not quite so cut and dry as reducing the maintenance cost to credits and doing a comparison.

On scouting/missions farming for blueprints most of the time you are only returning to port for 2 reasons if you build your character and fleet correctly.

- Because you have so much good cargo dumping it for more loot feels insane
- Because you are running out of money

The cash output can't be mitigated by anything. Supplies can be mitigated to the point where you have effectively unlimited supplies from Skills/Salvaging rigs and you could be running around for 9 months never needing to buy anything. The problem isn't the Paragon being too cheap, it's the Capital/Cruiser tiers of Low Tech can't be offset by anything. The Onslaught in actual use costs more then the Paragon because Supplies can be free and salary never is.

So long as free supplies can offset the costs, Low tech will be more expensive to maintain in practice.

DP cost nothing if the supplies were free.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2020, 08:13:46 PM
- High Maintenance on Paragon would generate the gut feeling of being prohibitively expensive, unless the hullmod's maintenance cost increase was reduced from 100% to 50% (for 90 supplies/month). This would also help Hyperion, though not in the way(s) it particularly needs.

- Does Onslaught really need to be set at 750 skeleton crew? 600 would be just about right.

You know, I was mostly joking about High Maintenance, but this sounds pretty good.

(The Hyperion is in a tough spot, yeah... one of those things where it's hard to make it "good enough" without making it too good.)


Yeah this is a bit annoying. Low-tech ships have more PPT than high-tech ones, but once PPT runs out low-tech ships burn a hole in your pocket faster than high-tech ones (and worse, do it in a semi-hidden way).
Maybe post-PPT CR degradation should be a multiple of CR % spent per deployment? Although that risks having weird effects on a few ships (e.g. with Hyperion's 40% CR to deploy)...

To some extent, that's mitigated by them having higher PPT, but, yeah, once CR starts ticking down... hmm. The rate being constant is something where it is how it is for simplicity, to avoid having yet another stat to convey, and a not super important one at that. Ideally, it would probably be based on CR to deploy.


The cash output can't be mitigated by anything. Supplies can be mitigated to the point where you have effectively unlimited supplies from Skills/Salvaging rigs and you could be running around for 9 months never needing to buy anything. The problem isn't the Paragon being too cheap, it's the Capital/Cruiser tiers of Low Tech can't be offset by anything. The Onslaught in actual use costs more then the Paragon because Supplies can be free and salary never is.

So long as free supplies can offset the costs, Low tech will be more expensive to maintain in practice.

DP cost nothing if the supplies were free.

This doesn't make sense to me; supplies found during exploration are no more free than, say, the credits you get from completing a bounty. And several things mitigate ongoing credit costs - the stipend you start the game with, income from colonies, a commission.

I think a ship that cost no supplies to maintain but instead had a higher crew requirement, equivalent in credit costs, would I think be a better ship most of the time. You'd have more cargo space for loot and would come out ahead in credits earned. You *might* also be forced to return to port due to a lack of credits, but that seems like an edge-case scenario; maybe if you entirely stay away from colonies and have a fleet with multiple capitals, it could become a concern. Besides, you can just... run out of credits, and it's pretty much fine. It's not a reason to turn around, not the way running out of supplies is. Heck, if you stay out long enough, it might even be more profitable to run out!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on May 19, 2020, 09:20:01 PM
Yeah this is a bit annoying. Low-tech ships have more PPT than high-tech ones, but once PPT runs out low-tech ships burn a hole in your pocket faster than high-tech ones (and worse, do it in a semi-hidden way).
Maybe post-PPT CR degradation should be a multiple of CR % spent per deployment? Although that risks having weird effects on a few ships (e.g. with Hyperion's 40% CR to deploy)...
To some extent, that's mitigated by them having higher PPT, but, yeah, once CR starts ticking down... hmm. The rate being constant is something where it is how it is for simplicity, to avoid having yet another stat to convey, and a not super important one at that. Ideally, it would probably be based on CR to deploy.
This seems like it would just be pushing the issue from one tech to another. And the other ALREADY pays more to deploy AND has shorter PPT. Adding faster/ harsher CR loss just seems like kicking them while they are down. I mean look how useless the Hyperion is these days!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 19, 2020, 09:57:08 PM
Yeah, that's a good point, too.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 19, 2020, 10:41:56 PM
Maybe post-PPT CR degradation should be a multiple of CR % spent per deployment? Although that risks having weird effects on a few ships (e.g. with Hyperion's 40% CR to deploy)...
But how? You get 48s of PPT for 12% CR, or is your PPT reset? If the latter was the case, PPT might as well be done away with and replaced with losing CR gradually. Lasher would lose 1% every 20 seconds and Onslaught would lose it every 60 seconds.
While I wouldn't mind it per se — it would do away with redeploying and AI being oblivious to running out of PPT would no longer be an issue — I doubt this is where Alex wants to go with it, mainly because it that all ships would last longer on the battlefield and Alex wants to scale them back down.
- Note re. SCC's table: Heron's skeleton crew is 150, not 90 (thank goodness)
Mk I eyeballs have their issues.
On scouting/missions farming for blueprints most of the time you are only returning to port for 2 reasons if you build your character and fleet correctly.

- Because you have so much good cargo dumping it for more loot feels insane
- Because you are running out of money

The cash output can't be mitigated by anything. Supplies can be mitigated to the point where you have effectively unlimited supplies from Skills/Salvaging rigs and you could be running around for 9 months never needing to buy anything. The problem isn't the Paragon being too cheap, it's the Capital/Cruiser tiers of Low Tech can't be offset by anything. The Onslaught in actual use costs more then the Paragon because Supplies can be free and salary never is.

So long as free supplies can offset the costs, Low tech will be more expensive to maintain in practice.

DP cost nothing if the supplies were free.
This is how I roll usually. I never sell supplies, unless I find a mad dosh deal somewhere, because I will use them eventually. While exploring, it really isn't hard to come back with supply surplus (unless I get really unlucky) and when it comes to bounties, it depends more on if I manage to sweep the bounty nicely (and if I take salvaging skill). Not having to buy supplies at all beats even buying them on the cheap. My limitations more often come from credits and not from lacking supplies.
Though, my opinion might not be as important here, since balance should be aimed towards the average player, not a madman smacking ordos around with a single ship.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Havoc on May 20, 2020, 01:31:46 AM

maybe fighterspam should get additional damage if spammed like 20x2 drover wings(or other ships)

(same could work for pilum)

fighter collision could also help, but cost too much performance
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Histidine on May 20, 2020, 02:26:39 AM
Maybe post-PPT CR degradation should be a multiple of CR % spent per deployment? Although that risks having weird effects on a few ships (e.g. with Hyperion's 40% CR to deploy)...
But how? You get 48s of PPT for 12% CR, or is your PPT reset? If the latter was the case, PPT might as well be done away with and replaced with losing CR gradually. Lasher would lose 1% every 20 seconds and Onslaught would lose it every 60 seconds.
While I wouldn't mind it per se — it would do away with redeploying and AI being oblivious to running out of PPT would no longer be an issue — I doubt this is where Alex wants to go with it, mainly because it that all ships would last longer on the battlefield and Alex wants to scale them back down.
The idea was: ship with 10% CR to deploy bleeds n% CR per minute past PPT, ship with 20% CR to deploy bleeds 2n% CR per minute (or 1.5n, or some other formula)

On your idea for abolishing PPT: A long time ago (when CR was first announced) I raised the idea before of a system where PPT is very low and deployment costs come primarily from time spent in combat.
The main upside is an incentive to finish fights quickly. But there are also other gameplay implications, and introducing it now would require redoing a couple of stats for every ship + changing the UI around CR loss notifications.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Daynen on May 20, 2020, 03:03:35 AM
As often is the case, I caution against balancing things by cost and upkeep numbers for a simple reason: if a player plays long enough, both concerns become moot.  With the right colony setups, money ceases to be an issue; with the right skills and a little management, supplies, fuel and even crew can be sustained in very nearly infinite quantities with barely a stop at the nearest port.  Once you have a few million in monthly income (AFTER you've bribed off any raids or whatnot) the ostensibly lower upkeep cost of a given ship becomes irrelevant, leaving them generally inferior choices--hence many drift away from the industry skill tree with experience.  Combined with the hard limit of 30 ships (which I understand may be changing) most of the choice-driven paths are stripped away, leaving us with a fleet full of things like paragons, prometheuses and Atlases (Or Atlas mk II's if you're a stubborn lunatic like me.)  One may consider this "endgame" and thus dismiss it, but let's get real: we all get there eventually.  I favor the idea of tradeoffs that actually affect how the ships play, rather than the background numbers just taking more or less time to become a problem.

One idea comes to mind that may be an incentive to run low-tech: malfunction resistance.  Simple, sturdy equipment is easy to repair and takes more abuse before it malfunctions.  What if low-tech ships were characterized by inherently more durable engines and weapons?  It wouldn't necessarily make them harder to kill; just harder to cripple in the interim.  Low-tech ships don't have to possess the incredible, fleet wiping power of a fully geared Paragon, but if they were just so resilient that they fought at full capacity right to the very end, it would cement their position as brawling ships, give them great reason to spec for brickiness and make them more reliable over the course of multiple engagements.  This could be as simple as baking in an armored weapon mount or insulated engine hullmod, though the reduced sensor profile is kind of an unintentional bonus for this purpose.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 20, 2020, 03:42:51 AM
It's not a discussion at what point money stops being a problem, which is a separate issue. I prefer ongoing costs to match ships' general power levels and to avoid situations, where Onslaught is more expensive to run than a Paragon. I can play without skills on spacer and still make it, but it doesn't mean any ships I use should be nerfed and any I don't should be buffed, only that I'm a tryhard.
The idea about making low-tech ships more resistant to malfunctions sounds like something that should be universal, but tied to the ship's armour somehow. Making low-tech more resistant just because of a hullmod doesn't sit well with me, it's too "artificial", at least for a base game ship set. At least hypothetical "low maintenance" is there to make the player notice the exceptions from the rule, rather than to influence the ship's statistics directly.
On your idea for abolishing PPT: A long time ago (when CR was first announced) I raised the idea before of a system where PPT is very low and deployment costs come primarily from time spent in combat.
The main upside is an incentive to finish fights quickly. But there are also other gameplay implications, and introducing it now would require redoing a couple of stats for every ship + changing the UI around CR loss notifications.
It would require changing CR lost per second and adding this to the tooltip. And maybe also changing CR used for deployment to multiples of 10 or 15 to make player calculations easier and faster. Though if PPT remains, there still is an incentive to redeploy.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2020, 04:39:56 AM
Another thing:  NPCs do not care about costs.  Adding High Maintenance on Paragon would not hurt the AI as it would the player.  AI would spam them just as much, and if they die, who cares? More where they came from.  Player does not have that kind of luxury.

Paragon already costs a lot to deploy at 60 DP.  Fights are practically tag-team duels instead of fleet battle due to how much DP they cost.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Schwartz on May 20, 2020, 05:38:11 AM
And running costs such as supply drain is at best invisible to a well-stocked fleet and at worst a total buzzkill for people who aren't as good at the game. Supply costs never pop up as a point of joy or excitement for the player. They pretty much disappear if you do things right and that's as good as it gets.

Please, please never balance ships around supply drain if you can balance them around flux / OP stats / mounts etc. Supply drain is enough of a nuisance as-is, and CR recovery limits the ability to chain deploy capitals beyond having to break even on supplies if you don't want to be stranded.

Making High Maintenance less bad at +50% sounds reasonable to me.

Capitals also have prohibitive fuel requirements. A cruiser costs 2-3 fuel / LY. Capitals cost 8-15!

The current meta needs fighters fixed and brought in line, not capitals. Paragon and Onslaught are powerful, but little has changed for these ships. I don't see the problem.

The idea of giving low-tech ships some blanket repair bonus to weapons / engines sounds interesting and lore-accurate to me.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2020, 07:09:07 AM
It is not all fighters, just the high-powered ones like Sparks.  Also, player needs to spec his fleet for fighters.  What I dislike most about fighters, well... carriers, is player can min-max carriers for fighters at the cost of everything else, especially the carrier's guns, and be superior to the carriers that have ITU, a few guns, and pumped flux stats (plus any choice of fighters).
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Schwartz on May 20, 2020, 08:10:35 AM
It's not just Sparks though. It's massing fighters / swarming / fighter AI in general that's overpowered in one way and quite limited in another. It's the whole defensive metagame that's now out-of-date and still assumes we're dealing with finite swarms. Flak Cannons are even better than they were; any kind of Burst PD is even weaker than it was. Accurate small-mount weapons like IR Pulse and Railgun are suddenly better because why worry with PD when you're better off killing fighters?

Carriers now offer quite tangible trap choices in buffing the ship too much vs. using Sparks or Daggers. It's like when you get a flux beast of a high-tech ship and put nothing on it but Plasma Cannon or Heavy Blaster plus shield buffs, leaving a lot of mounts empty. It doesn't feel like the intended purpose but it might work better that way. Drover has that new paradigm baked into the design, that's why they work so well. Heron doesn't and is short on OP in general compared to alternatives, that's why you can so easily mess it up now.

There are many considerations to fixing the fighter meta. Making them slower & respawn more slowly is one. Setting a limit on swarm # vs single targets is another - really hate that idea personally. Buffing PD is iffy because it impacts missile meta greatly. Working with separate OP pools for fighters / carriers is another. Better fighter controls may actually make them stronger again, but it's an improvement that is IMO needed now. None of these is the obvious right choice.

But let's assume that actual ship balancing is an old shoe and has, for the most part, happened already. Outliers exist. I don't think giving Enforcer more armor is a problem. But I wouldn't make sweeping changes to this system before having a look at the other.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Locklave on May 20, 2020, 08:15:40 AM
I won't be using Low tech ships in Cruiser/Capitol class anymore based on what I've learned in this thread. They cost nearly as much immediate cash and have arguably more maintenance then their counterparts while being inferior and less flexible in combat.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2020, 08:23:53 AM
It's not just Sparks though. It's massing fighters / swarming / fighter AI in general that's overpowered in one way and quite limited in another. It's the whole defensive metagame that's now out-of-date and still assumes we're dealing with finite swarms. Flak Cannons are even better than they were; any kind of Burst PD is even weaker than it was. Accurate small-mount weapons like IR Pulse and Railgun are suddenly better because why worry with PD when you're better off killing fighters?

There are many considerations to fixing the fighter meta. Making them slower & respawn more slowly is one. Setting a limit on swarm # vs single targets is another - really hate that idea personally. Buffing PD is iffy because it impacts missile meta greatly. Working with separate OP pools for fighters / carriers is another. Better fighter controls may actually make them stronger again, but it's an improvement that is IMO needed now. None of these is the obvious right choice.

But let's assume that actual ship balancing is an old shoe and has, for the most part, happened already. Outliers exist. I don't think giving Enforcer more armor is a problem. But I wouldn't make sweeping changes to this system before having a look at the other.
For slowing fighter respawn, get rid of Expanded Deck Crew.  It is the ITU for carriers.  It also makes outfitting battlecarriers with guns hard because they want both ITU and Expanded Deck Crew.  Legion can barely manage both.

Re: Flux beast.  I am not fond of Odyssey because the best loadout for me is two plasma cannons, few burst PD, max flux stats, and little else, and it can brawl capitals and nearly everything else.  Highly unbalanced (namely that most mounts are empty, including the large synergy at the right).  AI cannot use it because it burns into the middle of a mob and gets picked off.  If I try to outfit Odyssey with a conventional loadout bristling with weapons (or even with no missiles), it gets clobbered because of lack of OP and flux stats.  If I want to give Odyssey to AI, I need to give it a conservative loadout I do not want to use for myself.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Hiruma Kai on May 20, 2020, 09:02:57 AM
This doesn't make sense to me; supplies found during exploration are no more free than, say, the credits you get from completing a bounty. And several things mitigate ongoing credit costs - the stipend you start the game with, income from colonies, a commission.

Midline/High Tech get a primary portion of their expenses paid for in the game play loop. So Low Tech and Midline/High tech get their supply costs covered by the gameplay loop of exploration and Low Tech gets to eat cash losses that Midline/High tech get to keep.

Using supplies faster isn't a disadvantage if the incoming flow is equal to usage, it just means the one using it faster got to pay bills with it instead of dumping it in space in favor of more valuable loot.

Who is keeping more of that colony/commission/bounty money? Not Low tech.

Exploration is like 80% of the game before you have effectively unlimited cash and none of this matters. Midline/High Tech become the early/mid game winners because of this, the time when Low Tech should shine. What this means is Low tech is almost never the best option.

edit:

I won't be using Low tech ships in Cruiser/Capitol class anymore based on what I've learned in this thread. They cost nearly as much immediate cash and have arguably more maintenance then their counterparts while being inferior and less flexible in combat.

A ship with nearly equal maintenance despite having 50% lower DP.

I give up. Can anyone recommend a mod that does something about this?

One quick option is make a backup of your ship_data.csv (in case you accidentally edit it wrong, and so you can revert back), and then hand edit yourself.  It lives in Starsector/starsector-core/data/hulls/. Its pretty self explanatory (left most column is ship names, and the columns to the right contain various statistics - changing the "min crew" and "fuel/ly" columns would probably address your concerns).  As for already existing mods, I offhand don't know of any that tweak the low-tech campaign stats.  For a small change like that, making your own mod wouldn't be that hard either.

Although I'll point out, you can totally go with a combat or trading gameplay loop instead of an exploration loop and get to end game, with the end game being defined as flying around in a fleet capable of taking down a <redacted> large fleet.  This can be done with pretty much any start (okay, spacer does force you do the trader/mission loop once or twice first, but after that, its enough to scavenge a ship and start fighting).  So exploration isn't necessarily 80% of the game. Can be and is certainly a relaxing way to play.

And even in the exploration loop, if I'm at the point of dumping supplies and I've got cruisers or bigger in my dedicated exploration fleet, then I'm heading back to the core systems to sell, as that means I've likely got enough loot to buy another combat cruiser. 2000 in supplies or better is a lot of credits (and roughly what 2 Colossus carry in loot), especially if you find a starving port with a supply deficit.  And such starving ports can be caused easily if you're so inclined.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2020, 09:56:51 AM
As often is the case, I caution against balancing things by cost and upkeep numbers for a simple reason: if a player plays long enough, both concerns become moot.
Please, please never balance ships around supply drain if you can balance them around flux / OP stats / mounts etc.

(That's literally not an option in cases where one ship is meant to be more powerful than another, in that case you're by definition balancing against cost. This becomes more obvious when you consider the "balance" between, say, a frigate and a capital ship. Obviously other things are a consideration as well, but cost can't not be.)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Schwartz on May 20, 2020, 10:26:58 AM
That's true, but I'm talking about outliers or 'sports cars' if you will. Hyperion is a sports car. Afflictor is a sports car (it just doesn't know it... plz no nerf).

Paragon is already a whopping 60 DP. High Maintenance on this beast will mean I'm never going to use it anymore, which is a pity. High Maintenance is effectively shrinking the fleet pool for every kind of operation that is not a special case - where it'd be worth it no matter what. I would rather see most ships remain economically feasible and usable in regular fleet ops. Paragon has range, flux and fortress shield, but it's not a power outlier at 60 DP. It's simply the biggest, baddest ship in the sector, and its only direct competitor is 1/3rd cheaper!

Talking about giving low tech a hand... reducing that crazy 15 fuel / LY on the Legion and Onslaught would be a measure.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 20, 2020, 10:33:56 AM
That's all fair, yeah. I do think the Paragon would see some solid use at 90 supplies/month, though - it just might be more in line with how good it is. 120 would be... a lot.

I also happen to like the extra fuel use from low-tech ships with burn drive - thematically - so I don't want to touch that.

Another related point, as far as the next release - the higher DP cost of the Paragon will matter more when it affects the magnitude of some fleetwide bonuses. I.E. (numbers made up on the spot) if you get +15% max CR from Crew Training, but having the Paragon pushes you over the limit and you only get +12% or some such - fleetwide! - then, while not a major concern, that's certainly a way a higher-powered ship pays for it. Especially when this is added up over several skills.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2020, 12:01:05 PM
Paragon has range, flux and fortress shield, but it's not a power outlier at 60 DP. It's simply the biggest, baddest ship in the sector, and its only direct competitor is 1/3rd cheaper!
I agree with this.  AI does not pilot it much better than other capitals.

I wonder how Radiant will compete once player with that one tech 5 skill unlocks its use as a pet.  Current Radiant is overpowered, around Paragon-tier for only 40 DP.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Mondaymonkey on May 20, 2020, 12:40:42 PM
Radical suggestion:

To solve "Low Tech ship non viablility" problem, I suggest remove them from the game entirely.

No ships - no problem.

And now, when I have your attention, lets get serious:

Comrades, problem is not exist! 10 pages of thread for nothing. Low-tech ships does their job well. They are crude, cheap (in price), spendable hummer to smash enemies in a brutal massacre of numerous berserk warriors. That is their job. If you want to anal-dominate the entire sector with no casualties, using unfair natural advantages, and then proud yourself, how awesome you are - that is for High-tech ships. And the midline silently laugh from them both, able massive spam and bites deadly at the same time.

If you feel like low-tech not satisfying your demand - change them for something that match. Or change the demands! Do not try to embroider with hummer!

Do some ships need a slight nerf/buff? Well, yes, off course. But this is like a witch hunt now - let's nerf/buff entire class based on hull pain color! Because I like/dislike their appearance, and want firepower match that.

P.S. about fuel consumption and speed: have anyone ever seen a dozer? That is what low-tech ships are. I've rather add them more hull and armor (or even type-based damage resist), than improve fuel consumption or speed. Same thing to maintenance: have anyone ever tried do repair a dozer? It is much expensive compared to your sedan!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 20, 2020, 12:59:43 PM
Yeah cost wise it sucks, but honestly unless you are utterly gasping for money it's not that big of a deal. Low tech isn't overwhelming but it does it's job just fine for the most part.

A paragon is just a mobile space station, with a similar DP cost to boot!
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 20, 2020, 01:23:29 PM
I think Dominator/Onslaught/Legion are worth every penny at the moment. I prefer Onslaught to Paragon as a player ship to be honest - the much greater speed lets it have a much bigger impact. I need to try using a Conquest/Odyssey seriously to see if I prefer them.

For AI... I still think I prefer the Onslaught TBH. I can deploy 3 of them for the same points that I could deploy 2 Paragons, and again they are going to be faster. 1 on 1 a Paragon wins, but that doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Wyvern on May 20, 2020, 01:24:51 PM
Do not try to embroider with hummer!
This forum could use a 'like' button...
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: dead_hand on May 20, 2020, 02:38:24 PM
That's all fair, yeah. I do think the Paragon would see some solid use at 90 supplies/month, though - it just might be more in line with how good it is. 120 would be... a lot.

I also happen to like the extra fuel use from low-tech ships with burn drive - thematically - so I don't want to touch that.

Another related point, as far as the next release - the higher DP cost of the Paragon will matter more when it affects the magnitude of some fleetwide bonuses. I.E. (numbers made up on the spot) if you get +15% max CR from Crew Training, but having the Paragon pushes you over the limit and you only get +12% or some such - fleetwide! - then, while not a major concern, that's certainly a way a higher-powered ship pays for it. Especially when this is added up over several skills.

Afflictors and Phase ships need balancing. Not (just) in terms of power, as a player you can cheese through the whole game with afflictors, but also the annoyance factor, that you need to wait for their CR to expire to be able to kill them. It's annoying enough that it got me to disable phase ships from the game altogether.

Please consider a hullmod that disables phase cloak ability in a circular range. All stations, and radiant class should get this ability innately, and should be available as a hullmod on capitals at least.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Wyvern on May 20, 2020, 03:17:57 PM
Afflictors and Phase ships need balancing. Not (just) in terms of power, as a player you can cheese through the whole game with afflictors, but also the annoyance factor, that you need to wait for their CR to expire to be able to kill them.
First, that's not actually true - there are at least three ways to deal with phase ships that don't require waiting out their CR.
Option one is to use a very fast flagship and just chase them until they flux out.  (Easier said than done, I will admit, but it is still doable.)
Option two is to use a Harbinger as your flagship; its ship system can force other phase ships out of phase.
Option three is to use fighters; shielded interceptors are a fairly hard counter to frigate-class phase ships (and in turn get hard-countered by a Doom, but Dooms are slow enough that you don't need anything truly speedy to chase them down.)  Unshielded interceptors are still very effective against phase frigates that aren't the Shade.

Second, see Alex's twitter (https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1251285866007461893).
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 20, 2020, 03:42:06 PM
Four Reaper (boosted by Entropy Amplifier) Afflictor is rather cheesy, nearly as much as Harbinger with Typhoon Reapers in 0.9a.  I bring three to five of them to one-shot battlestation sections (via splash damage on the wall) and the occasional large ship.  The same job as one or two Harbingers did in 0.9a.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 20, 2020, 09:05:44 PM
Afflictors and Phase ships need balancing. Not (just) in terms of power, as a player you can cheese through the whole game with afflictors, but also the annoyance factor, that you need to wait for their CR to expire to be able to kill them.
First, that's not actually true - there are at least three ways to deal with phase ships that don't require waiting out their CR.
Option one is to use a very fast flagship and just chase them until they flux out.  (Easier said than done, I will admit, but it is still doable.)
Option two is to use a Harbinger as your flagship; its ship system can force other phase ships out of phase.
Option three is to use fighters; shielded interceptors are a fairly hard counter to frigate-class phase ships (and in turn get hard-countered by a Doom, but Dooms are slow enough that you don't need anything truly speedy to chase them down.)  Unshielded interceptors are still very effective against phase frigates that aren't the Shade.

1) Player-piloted fast frigates/Medusa/Aurora/Odyssey can do it fairly easily. You need either high avg speed or big burst of mobility.
2) It's not just Harbinger, all phase ships can counter each other. Frigates can easily  out-wait larger opponents (if 3x cloak) or rush the 2 second unphase window (if 4x cloak). Doom needs to place only 1 mine correctly (though corralling the target will likely take more).
4) Long range beams force enemies to enter phase too far to able to effectively reach you ( at least for AI opponents). Several overlapping beam ships will shut down enemy phase hard.

Second, see Alex's twitter (https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1251285866007461893).

It seems AI will at least use flux dump + phase accelerated dissipation approach. Good against frigates or targets with weak shields.
Nothing about omni-shield bypass tactics though...
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 20, 2020, 10:46:03 PM
The AI does not need to know how to bypass omni shields. Then the player would just be unable to pilot or deploy anything without 360 degree shields or a phase cloak since there's literally nothing you can do to stop a perfectly piloted phase ship from shooting you in the back on your own. I would rather have phase ships removed from the game than have to deal with that.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 20, 2020, 10:56:29 PM
You can keep shield down and raise it reactively, there is just enough time to react (even better, use skimmer if you have it).
Below capital size bypassing Accelerated omni shield is also way more difficult (too fast, thus likely not doable even for AI taught to do general case).
Also, simplest and most reliable bypass is AI exploit which can be fixed (approach while facing away from target to convince it to drop shield), actually racing against rotating shield is more difficult.
Another key AI problem is raising shield in direction of enemy rather than on intercept course of projectiles (which I obviously fire off-center).

There is a lot that could be done to actively hunt them too, like having escort phase frigates (taught to ruthlessly fish for unphase window vulnerability) or Augmented Gyro TL/PL on multiple ships with overlapping coverage. Even avoiding single non-Gyro TL while bypassing shields takes decent effort, I doubt AI could do more.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 20, 2020, 11:56:52 PM
So the player has to keep track of all the enemy phase ships and be ready to perfectly react at all times, otherwise they just lose their flagship/take massive and/or crippling damage? That doesn't sound like an interesting or fun mechanic, especially for players with less mechanical skill, or who haven't learned all the intricacies of combat.

I'm all for the AI getting better at playing against a player controlled phase ship so it isn't so abusable, but I think a lot of care needs to be taken to make sure AI phase ships are not too oppressive to play against. They're already pretty good at going after isolated or separated ships. My usual strategy is just to spam fighters and beams against phase heavy fleets and that works well enough, but ordering my fleet to cower in a ball waiting for fighters to kill phase ships so I can play the game again is not very fun IMO.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 21, 2020, 12:45:33 AM
If you try to duel a phase ship without having some dedicated counter strategy (like skimmer), yes, you are down to perfect shield reactions. Good, phase frigates/Harbinger should be scary rather than merely annoying (and maybe more DP expensive as well as rare, except crappy pirate ones). The only reason they aren't scary is AI weakness.

Basically, an even AI Afflictor should not be perceived as just some frigate. It should be at least a cruiser-grade threat, though by finesse rather than brute force.

There are many ways to complicate enemy phase ship's life in a fleet fight though (and I assume AI would be improved at both phase use AND counter if it ever happens).
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2020, 05:22:46 AM
Part of my strategy to counter phase (Doom stack) fleets is edge-camping then deathballing my entire fleet.  While I normally do this anyway for probable multi-round combat (for quick escapes and PPT reset for the next round), I will do this against phase fleets so they cannot go behind my ships, and to snuff mines as they spawn.

Phase fleets or phase and carrier combo fleets are the most annoying fleets to fight against.  I will pass TT fleets over other major faction's fleets.  (Ordos with Radiants are more dangerous, but at least those drop Sparks and alpha cores for colony spam.)

Quote
Basically, an even AI Afflictor should not be perceived as just some frigate. It should be at least a cruiser-grade threat, though by finesse rather than brute force.
Cruiser-grade is too strong if it was meant to be as strong as one class up (destroyer in this case).  Afflictor should be worth 15 or 20 DP if it was meant to be cruiser-grade equivalent.

Hyperion, on the other hand, has fallen flat after various gameplay changes.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 21, 2020, 05:47:44 AM
Cruiser-grade is too strong if it was meant to be as strong as one class up (destroyer in this case).  Afflictor should be worth 15 or 20 DP if it was meant to be cruiser-grade equivalent.

Hyperion, on the other hand, has fallen flat after various gameplay changes.

3xAM Afflictor can one-shot Medusa/Sunder/Shrike and comes close with Hammerhead/Enforcer. 4xAM is too unwieldy to be practical (no approach time reserve to actually bypass shields), but it can one-shot any DE.
So saying that a properly piloted Afflictor is at least Cruiser-grade threat seems adequate. Though this would only apply if it ever got AI overhaul, current AI Afflictor definitely doesn't perform that well.

Hyperion... was it ever as good as current Afflictor? Maybe in pre-CR times, when nibbling at enemies slowly was ok.

Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2020, 06:40:49 AM
Hyperion... was it ever as good as current Afflictor? Maybe in pre-CR times, when nibbling at enemies slowly was ok.
I do not know if Hyperion ever matched current Afflictor, but Afflictor was not always this strong as a playership, not with old phase cloak and active flares system.  (EDIT:  Afflictor was overpowered when it had Quantum Disruptor during 0.8, and it had no reliable counters, not if it hits QD first and destroys the would-be counter with AM blasters, which even the AI did!)  However, Afflictor, along with Tempest (with two Heavy Blasters), could solo a Hegemony System Defense fleet during one of the earlier 0.6 releases.  (Tempest was a bit better at it.)  Hyperion did not have enough PPT to do it.  Afflictor and Tempest could barely do it (with PPT down to critical malfunction level).

However, full skilled Hyperion was stronger during 0.6 (and maybe 0.7) releases, especially when it had flux stats to comfortably fire dual Heavy Blasters twice or maybe three times (it cannot do that now, so Mining Blasters are the best it can do today), and AI had no anti-phase AI.  Also, with stronger missile specialization, it could kill or severely hurt a battleship with two Reapers (which enabled frigate spam dominance during 0.65; Hyperion assassinates enemy commander with all Combat 10 skills, and the forty frigate horde steamrolls everything else before PPT times out or CR decays too much).

Also, objectives were more important, and player wanted something to capture relays on the enemy's side as quickly as possible.  Hyperion was the best at it, with Tempest being a distant second.  (Phase did not get time shift until about 0.7.2.)  Eventually, all endgame fights had objectives, and it was a good idea to capture some at least for enemy AI manipulation.  Today, objectives can be ignored thanks to Electronic Warfare and Coordinated Maneuvers, and that is only in fights against human factions.  Against Ordos (the really important fights for cores and colony spam), objectives do not spawn at all (and I like no objectives).

In pre-CR times, Hyperion was the key to dominance.  Capture points on the enemies side while denying the enemy theirs to boost your DP limit, deploy your fleet to advance as a wall to crush the trickle of everything until it reaches the enemy spawn point.  It was ridiculous watching my ships trying to exit the north side trying to get at enemy Onslaughts before they burn in, and back then, ships did not burn in like rockets as they do today.  Of course, it was still sub-optimal to the ultimate build of auto-resolving system defense fleets and winning (which probably required max Leadership and Technology).

Also, phase-cloak before it gained time shift and phase cooldown (around 0.7.2) was just an imitation Fortress Shield that ghosted through bullets instead of absorbing them.  (I prefer the old ghost shield for Afflictor and Shade because AI fought better with it.)  Afflictor was a super Lasher, brawling with ballistics while flickering cloak and ghosting through bullets, while Shade was a better tank than Monitor by ghosting through everything while denying area with beams, needlers, and EMP.  (Terminator Drone was also a lesser ghost tank.)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 21, 2020, 08:07:06 AM
I'm looking forward to the new phase ship AI. To me the best counter is just using interceptors rather than bombers or heavy fighters in a few carriers. Talon + Gladius or even just 2 Talons will ruin an afflictor or harbinger's day.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 21, 2020, 08:21:16 AM
An 8 DP ship should not have the threat level of a cruiser. That is a balance problem, not something that should be doubled down on. Even in AI hands right now, phase ships do a good job of getting behind you and killing you if you're by yourself. I already think of them as much more than a normal ship and already implement changes in strategy and fleet composition to deal with them. We don't need to go further in that direction. The problem isn't that they aren't scary, it's that the best and easiest way to not die to them is to play in a really boring way (i.e. sit in a ball and spam fighters).

It seems from the clip like the changes Alex is making will make them more interested in attacking from the front rather than always trying to backstab. To me it seems like that will benefit the harbinger and doom and hurt the afflicter and shade, but that's honestly fine by me. If they decide to materialize in front of my weapons rather than always trying get behind me, that will make my life much easier a lot of the time. We will have to see exactly how it plays out.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Megas on May 21, 2020, 08:38:52 AM
Also, Doom by its nature exploits default AI behavior, and to counter that, player needs to (spend CP and) micromanage the fleet to control their AI urges and prevent them from blundering into landmines or other unfavorable situations.  Similar deal with cowardly ships (especially the phase frigates) that kite and try to lure your ships away so their friends can surround and pick them off.

...To me it seems like that will benefit the harbinger and doom and hurt the afflicter and shade, but that's honestly fine by me. If they decide to materialize in front of my weapons rather than always trying get behind me, that will make my life much easier a lot of the time. We will have to see exactly how it plays out.
AI Afflictor and Shade seem kind of useless.  All they do a flit about and run away until their CR times out and they die.  They are only good as AM Blaster or Reaper glass sword playerships.  AI Harbinger desperately needs the help.  Currently, it is merely a bigger AM Blaster Afflictor flagship that is easier to use.  (I use Harbinger less than Afflictor.)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 21, 2020, 08:40:48 AM
@Megas
Yeah that's a lot of iterations. While pre-CR point-capping Hyperion could probably rival current Afflictor in usefulness, it never was quite as directly destructive.
Though Reaper-spam QD Harbinger still holds the title of ultimate cheese machine.

I'm looking forward to the new phase ship AI. To me the best counter is just using interceptors rather than bombers or heavy fighters in a few carriers. Talon + Gladius or even just 2 Talons will ruin an afflictor or harbinger's day.

It's only true because AI is bad at phase, fighters are not fast enough to seriously restrict optimally piloted Afflictor. At best they make me waste some PPT (longer approach/retreat to vent further). Though this also depends on fighter vs phase ship speed boosting skills, fully boosted Sparks would come closest to stopping no-skills Afflictor.
At the same time all carriers except Mora are easy and high priority targets for Afflictor. Mora is exception because there is no way to bypass it's damage reducing system.

An 8 DP ship should not have the threat level of a cruiser.

My takeaway here is that Afflictor should cost quite a bit more, if it ever gets better AI. As player ship, cost doesn't really matter much as long as it's not too ridiculous. There are only 1 or 2 deployed at the same time anyway.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 21, 2020, 08:54:16 AM
It seems from the clip like the changes Alex is making will make them more interested in attacking from the front rather than always trying to backstab.

Not quite, just more aggressive in general, depending on... factors*. In the clip, it's attacking from the front because the other ship has an ally and the Harbinger doesn't think trying to attack from the back would be a good idea.

*The factors are tuned to, more or less, have phase ships survive about as long as their non-phase allies.

(And, yeah, I don't have any interest in trying to make it do shield-bypassing etc. It already tries to flank and attack from the back using phase, and that's imo as far as it should go. It's fiddly stuff and there's no reason to do it - any sort of fix, if it was desired, would be better off focusing on making that stuff not possible instead (and I *think* it's harder in the dev version? Not 100% sure.) Obviously this makes phase ships potentially a lot more effective in player hands, but both their costs and their AI are balanced assuming that stuff isn't a factor.)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Schwartz on May 21, 2020, 10:55:17 AM
Speaking of phase AI...

What I have seen so far is that a lot of phase ships will pass through their target and line up for a shot from the back, but they never seem to get that perfect 180° angle, the moment passes and they just veer off and write off the attack run. Making that a bit more broad and allowing the whole rear half or rear quarter to work for this would be a big improvement. Maybe that's what you mean with more aggressive. But it should be said.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 21, 2020, 11:30:07 AM
At least to me that part looks like phase frigates always try to attack from death-explosion-safe distance (at moment of unphasing and firing, which isn't always possible. Correct solution I use is to fire while on escape trajectory, so that you are at safe distance only by the time your AM shots hit).
For example if you give them longer ranged LAGs, phase frigates are much more consistent at attacking (but also not nearly as powerful as AM)...
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Alex on May 21, 2020, 12:29:59 PM
Speaking of phase AI...

What I have seen so far is that a lot of phase ships will pass through their target and line up for a shot from the back, but they never seem to get that perfect 180° angle, the moment passes and they just veer off and write off the attack run. Making that a bit more broad and allowing the whole rear half or rear quarter to work for this would be a big improvement. Maybe that's what you mean with more aggressive. But it should be said.

Not sure if I change anything related to this or not; I think I might have but I'm not super sure. Running 3-4 tests of Afflictor vs Eagle, though - which seems like a case where this could come up often, due to Maneuvering Jets - the Afflictor did not break off an attack run even once. This included a few runs where it shot at shields because it couldn't quite line it up. So... maybe fixed?

At least to me that part looks like phase frigates always try to attack from death-explosion-safe distance (at moment of unphasing and firing, which isn't always possible. Correct solution I use is to fire while on escape trajectory, so that you are at safe distance only by the time your AM shots hit).
For example if you give them longer ranged LAGs, phase frigates are much more consistent at attacking (but also not nearly as powerful as AM)...

Again not 100% sure, but I think I made some improvements there a while ago. Possibly just by shaving down the safety margin. IIRC it might actually be aware of being on an escape trajectory - not actively doing that, but rather only unphasing when the explosion is a danger and that's the case. Could be wrong, though, I'd have to really dig around to be sure.

Regardless, though, it seems consistent about attacking and doesn't get stuck being unable to finish off a near-dead enemy ship. I mean, it does take a bit longer to line up the finishing shot but it's not stuck; maybe just 2x as long to do it as to get a normal shot in, or some such.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: TaLaR on May 21, 2020, 07:21:58 PM
Escape trajectory thing seems mandatory vs capitals/cruisers to me to leave it as something AI only occasionally considers ( if that's the case) . On top of choosing attack angle, like never try finishing a Conquest by hitting center of it's side, you'd end up too close even while moving away at full speed.

Dlso, does AI discern whether attack pass
may or may not be lethal and take/skip death-explosition precautions accordingly?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 22, 2020, 11:31:14 AM
When theorycrafting for the tournament, one more ship caught my eye. Condor can in no way meaningfully compete with any other carrier, save for Colossus Mk II (which is a worse carrier, but it has the Ground Support Package). Drover is just 2 DP more expensive, but it will easily fit fighters, weapons and EDC, whereas Condor will have to miss out on its medium missile, its small ballistics or EDC. This is in addition to Drover being faster, tougher and coming with a better ship system (fighters are missiles like better, so I prefer to spamming fighters to spamming missiles). Cruiser carriers are bigger and less fighter bay efficient, but they have the advantages of better fighter coordination, better ship systems, better durability and higher speed (yes, Mora is 45 speed and Condor is 40). The only way Condor can be considered a good choice is when there's no other choice.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 22, 2020, 11:57:45 AM
?? 2x broadsword, salamander, 2x vulcan, EDC, and 3 caps = 45 OP.

Condor is a little undertuned I agree though (and Drover is very overtuned).
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Aereto on May 22, 2020, 12:09:46 PM
I'd still see phase ships as a significant threat if my fleet is not geared for such contingencies. Beam weapons keep them away, but well-timed burst beam weapons can deal with them nicely, especially Doom and Afflictors.

Harbingers are a different matter. While Doom drops mines that make pressure more taxing, especially with 1v1 fights, Harbingers can interrupt shields and cloaks with overload bursts, which is dangerous for shield tank ships and phase ships alike.

When there are multiple Doom cruisers out and about, solid PD is vital. Point Defense AI hullmod is especially useful for small weapons to pull double-duty.

Gremlins are, well, Gremlins. Their torpedoes and missiles are enough to give larger ships grief and just retreat.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: SCC on May 22, 2020, 12:38:24 PM
?? 2x broadsword, salamander, 2x vulcan, EDC, and 3 caps = 45 OP.
Or you can pay 2 more maintenance and get Drover, which, with 8 OP fighters, can get 4 harpoon racks and boost them with EMR and ECCM and still have better base stats and a better ship system. Or Drover can get even better fighters. Even without RD, Drover would still be a very tempting choice, especially since racks can be dumped faster than pods, meaning that harpoons, sabots and reapers are going to perform as good on the Drover (which will be also able to have twice as many as Condor). Salamanders (and Pilum for obvious reasons) are the rare case where Condor will be able to dump them faster, but without ECCM.
Or you can get a 20 DP Heron, which also will be faster, tougher and its fighters will be better, even if it takes some more expensive ones.
Or you can get a 20 DP Mora, which also will be faster, much tougher and while its fighters are going to be only 3/4 as numerous as those of two Condors, it will go down a lot later than Condors will.
If it's bad, at least let it be efficient, as quantity is a quality of its own.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Thaago on May 22, 2020, 12:50:14 PM
Well yes, the drover has literally 1.5 to 2x the stats of a condor in multiple categories: Speed, OP, fighter power (due to system), flux dissipation (more than double!), shield efficiency (drover takes .8 damage for the condors 1.2, 20 50% more HP for given capacity), capacity (just shy of 1.5x base), cargo (double), and fuel (ok only 33% more but still). Condor has 100 more armor and 750 more HP.

Drovers are ridiculously better than condors :p. But I think Condors are only a little bit worse than they should be. 10 more OP, EDC being removed from the game, and Condors would be decent but highly vulnerable light carriers.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Wyvern on May 22, 2020, 02:46:46 PM
I still hold that Condors, as converted cargo ships, should have significantly more cargo space available.  120, maybe?
(This complaint applies to every other converted cargo ship, actually.  Except the Mudskipper Mk II for some odd reason.)

And the Drover, as a specialist military vessel, should have much less cargo space.  40 seems about right.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Igncom1 on May 22, 2020, 02:53:40 PM
I mean, presumably the cargo space is being filled with hangers and factories for replacement fighters right?
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Wyvern on May 22, 2020, 04:10:22 PM
I mean, presumably the cargo space is being filled with hangers and factories for replacement fighters right?
Obviously some of it is.  Equally obviously, not all of it is.  Given that the values set for it define what the lore is, there's no reason not to let the converted cargo vessels actually show some sign of that heritage.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Terethall on May 22, 2020, 04:43:30 PM
Obviously some of it is.  Equally obviously, not all of it is.  Given that the values set for it define what the lore is, there's no reason not to let the converted cargo vessels actually show some sign of that heritage.
I couldn't agree more with this. Hybrid ships are very fun, and very good, in the early game, and more variety in them would be great. The Prometheus MkII has more fuel capacity than a lot of other capitals, and I like that about it a lot. Now if only it had double the death explosion radius...
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: agnar on May 27, 2020, 12:40:43 PM
Generally High Tech Ships have better Flux Managements (Higher Flux Limit & Better Dissipation) and better Shields
Low Tech Mostly gets more Armor and Ballistics (more Damagereduction the higher the armor iss, but stripped armor still provides some Damagereduction)

Now to the Stupid Idea
The bonus high tech ships get is retained over the course of the battle ( you cant strip a ship of its better shield or flux stats)
Since Low Tech ships are intended to armortank why not give them some advantage if they loose armor? Why not increase flux disipation and/or venting speed based on how much armor is stripped( think of it like this, they had to choice between more armor or more vents -> they went with more armor (why not), but now the armor is gone soooo the flux can better be released)

(as for numbers different types of shipclasses (high, midline, low tech) should get different bonuses which rise but are maxed at 50% armor stripped)
(low tech ship has lost 10% armor -> 4% better dissipation, at 50% armor -> 20% better dissipation,
midline ship lost 10% armor -> 2% better dissipation, at 50% armor ->10% better dissipation
high tech ship lost 10% armor -> 1% better dissipation, at 50% armor ->5% better dissipation)
(Those number are just an idea)

(high tech ships are already very efficient thats why they get less of a bonus )

dunno if its feasible, but would be an intresting choice ,also it would increase the danger of low tech ships in prolonged battles + armortanking can now actually help flux management  ;D
+ Charging into battle with your shields disabled now seems like a better choice   8)
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: Grievous69 on May 27, 2020, 12:51:15 PM
That's a cool idea for a hullmod but I really don't see it as a general mechanic. And the reason low-tech ships have worse flux stats is because ballistics are far more efficient, shield upkeep costs are also lower in general I think. If a specific ship is just too weak I'd rather see a simple buff to dissipation than to implement weird new mechanics that are different for some ships.
Title: Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 27, 2020, 01:43:41 PM
Something like improved maneuverability or speed when armor is stripped would make a little more sense I think. Or even just giving low tech ships higher minimum armor reductions than other ships. Flux stats are too integral to the weapon balance to mess around with I think.