flux advantage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Enforcer
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.
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.
What? The Mora is a cruiser not a capital ship.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...)
Odd. I have not had major negative experiences with the AI piloting Medusa ships.
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.Spoilerhttps://youtu.be/x19IwPe56VI[close]
Audio balancing is "Luddite" but it's good fun to just rampage through Remnant fleets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Annihilators are similarly very nice for lots of HE pressure: both are good for SO builds.
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).
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.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.
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?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.
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!
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.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.
Enforcer, with two med missiles instead of four smalls. Would be almost as broken as the Drover.
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.
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)
Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very ImportantHold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?
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...)
Oh nice, I'm liking all the changes there. Glad to see Enforcer will be a real tank now :)That would be a rather noticeable nerf.
EDIT:QuoteFixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very ImportantHold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?
EDIT:QuoteFixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very ImportantHold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?
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.)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.)Hammerhead:
Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front
As an alternative, I suggest swapping the rear two turrets to energy instead of hybrid, and keeping the firing arcs the same.
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...)
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.)
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.
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".
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.)
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
(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?
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.
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.
Not to get lost in this, but it could be easier and still be rewarding?
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.
On the other hand i'm pretty hype for the next patch by all means ditch this nonsense if it gets it out faster.
(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 :)
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...
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.
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.)
"The upload folder is full, please contact the administrator"...
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.
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.
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!
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).
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 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.
- 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.
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)...
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 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!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).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.
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)...
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.
- 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.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.
- 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.
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)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.
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.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.
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'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?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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Do not try to embroider with hummer!This forum could use a 'like' button...
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.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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
...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.)
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.
An 8 DP ship should not have the threat level of a cruiser.
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.
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.
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)...
?? 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.
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.
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...