Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Low tech is not underpowered at all  (Read 15453 times)

Nanostrike

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2012, 12:49:07 PM »

Is the supercharged twice damage? For some reason I thought it was 1.5x damage (which is still very significant, I agree).

It goes from 1x to 1.5x as flux goes from 0 to 100%.

Might wanna add that tidbit to the tutorial.
Logged

Reapy

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2012, 12:54:22 PM »

I wonder if the best 'balance' to low vs high tech will be cost + repair/maintenance.

I think the idea of high tech being straight up better should be around, and they should be better in all categories, but I'm like a lot of people here and find the 'combined arms', limited ammo, approach of the low level ships much more interesting.

Obviously you want a player to reasonably compete in some capacity with high tech fleets, or even have a reason to use the low / mid tech ships besides as a stepping stone to the high tech.

I think simply using maintenance cost (maybe it does, haven't played too much recently, waiting for more of a game to be there ) is a good factor. Make it cost a lot to buy and keep that high tech fleet running. Maybe a player will find they get more bang for their buck by fielding 5 onslaughts instead of that single paragon. Perhaps the optimal is to have a few high tech cruisers and several low/mid tier support ships that are easy to replace and repair to keep things going.

Either way I think that the idea of large scrappy ships trading ballistics in space is such a 'romantic' notion you never want to see it go away, even at the high end of the game.
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2012, 12:56:28 PM »

As opposed to the completely not romantic notion of space fighters? Alright....
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Reapy

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2012, 01:00:10 PM »

Eh? All of the tropes are good, and there's room for it them all in the game. Just saying at the high end of the game it would be a shame to not ever see those low tech designs ever again.

Though I saw earlier that super long post where you got into it with someone over space fighters, so I'll just nicely skirt around that topic with you ;)
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2012, 01:15:39 PM »

Apologies, I thought you were drawing a contrast there. And yeah, I definitely have a bit of an axe to grind there, and I'm sorry for that.

But it's not like there aren't parallels to older platforms outperforming new, cutting edge ones. I mean, to go back to guns, I think you can exemplify the low tech, midline, and high tech thing with modern assault rifles, in particular, the AK platform, AR-15 platform, and those newfangled bullpup looking things. The AK is tough, inefficient, but that inefficiency is what buys its toughness and reliability. The AR-15 is newer, more versatile, being worlds first modular rifle, and it's been around long enough that the selection of aftermarket parts and options make it an exceptionally dangerous weapon. And newer bullpups like the Tavor incorporate new technologies, but aren't exactly proven, and in some cases are unbalanced and feature substantial weaknesses, ala the SA-80. Also, people are often uncomfortable and unfamiliar with them.

Bah, more gun babble.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Reapy

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2012, 01:42:38 PM »

No problem at all!

Gun babble is good though, it is pretty fitting with the setting since it is mostly a discussion about weapon platforms. I guess you can sort of look at it along the lines of say airplanes evolving. You just end up with way better engines and weapon capabilities and the computers just end up doing a hell of a lot of work.

Sort of along those lines, I've always thought in any kind of space combat you'd end up with cpu's on the ships that could calculate out a hell of a lot, that if you closed up to those narrow distances, accuracy would be pinpoint, probably to the point that you could shoot every ballistic 'out of the air' as it came in. Could probably hit / track ships at long distances etc. Anyway yeah I think though I generally agree with most of your points in terms of how tech would evolve 'in real life', but I still love me some WW2 in space :)

Also your last point there made me think that this game could use some 'unstable high tech' weapons that have occasional unintended consequences, though I know players generally don't like random failures, they still can be fun :)
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2012, 01:47:32 PM »

I figure the 'unintended consequences' of untried cutting edge technology are already well represented in the high tech fighters. IE, all that shiny new tech doesn't appear to do them a whole lot of good xD.

Also, why no love for WWI in space? WWI was the heyday of the battleship, and way more interesting in terms of rote naval engagements. WWII had way too much fighter scrambling, it's as if the ships were second fiddle in their own naval narrative.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Nanostrike

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2012, 05:54:30 PM »

I think simply using maintenance cost (maybe it does, haven't played too much recently, waiting for more of a game to be there ) is a good factor. Make it cost a lot to buy and keep that high tech fleet running. Maybe a player will find they get more bang for their buck by fielding 5 onslaughts instead of that single paragon. Perhaps the optimal is to have a few high tech cruisers and several low/mid tier support ships that are easy to replace and repair to keep things going.

The problem is that since the high-tech fleet is better in combat, suffers fewer losses, and is faster (Better able to catch fleets on the map), it gets more spoils of victory and thus...more money and supplies, thus counteracting the entire "It costs more" thing.

With your "5 Onslaughts vs 1 Paragon" thing...that single Paragon would be eating far less fuel and supplies than the 5 Onslaughts, and would be far faster due to it having a smaller fleet size.  That's pretty much the big thing with all the Low-Tech ships.  For example:

The "You can get 3 Lashers for the cost of one Tempest" argument loses water when you realize that the 3 Lashers are slower, get a speed penalty to the fleet due to their number, take 3x the crew (More, actually, as Low-tech ships use a LOT more crew than high-tech), use 3x the Fuel and Supplies, take 3x the weaponry to outfit, and are 3x as likely to have a casualty...


I could see Fleet Points being a balancing issue for it, if the FP costs of high-tech ships were modified.  If that single Tempest is really equal to several Lashers, give it the FP value of several lashers, in addition to the cost.


I figure the 'unintended consequences' of untried cutting edge technology are already well represented in the high tech fighters. IE, all that shiny new tech doesn't appear to do them a whole lot of good xD.

...yeah.  The Xyphos and Trident are pretty much second-fiddle fighters to the Broadsword and Pirhana.  Nearly useless shields, big, easy-to-hit hulls, and 2-ship squad sizes...ugh.

Only the Wasp and Dagger are useful High-Tech fighters currently.  I love Daggers.  12,000 potential damage per run...
Logged

Temstar

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2012, 06:37:24 PM »

Low tech line doesn't need to be fast though, each of them (enforcer, dominator, onslaught) can flatout outgun and outlast ships of comparable class. They don't need speed because they are always running into fights, never away. It's the same idea with the slow 21 knot American standard type battleships. If the American battlefleet never have any intention to avoid a fight then there is no real need for high speed for tactical manoeuvre, any fight their find themselves getting into are welcomed and if the enemy really trieds to avoid them at all time then all then have to do is sail slowly right at the enemy naval base and force a battle.

Same with low tech ships. All they have to do is stay in a pack and slowly creep up the map. Sooner or later you'll have to fight that pack if you don't want to lose your carriers or other slow ships. And that amount of armour and firepower and flak concentrated together is extraordinary hard to deal with even with superior FP and speed.
Logged

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2012, 06:42:36 PM »

Absolutely none of that helps you cap points and keep them capped. As I and many others have said, superior speed and lighter ship superiority results in local fleet superiority.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Kahabut

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2012, 06:58:23 PM »

Low tech line doesn't need to be fast though, each of them (enforcer, dominator, onslaught) can flatout outgun and outlast ships of comparable class. They don't need speed because they are always running into fights, never away. It's the same idea with the slow 21 knot American standard type battleships. If the American battlefleet never have any intention to avoid a fight then there is no real need for high speed for tactical manoeuvre, any fight their find themselves getting into are welcomed and if the enemy really trieds to avoid them at all time then all then have to do is sail slowly right at the enemy naval base and force a battle.

Same with low tech ships. All they have to do is stay in a pack and slowly creep up the map. Sooner or later you'll have to fight that pack if you don't want to lose your carriers or other slow ships. And that amount of armour and firepower and flak concentrated together is extraordinary hard to deal with even with superior FP and speed.

First, I'd point out that there are NO battleships in the modern US navy.  Did you know that?  What replaced them you might ask, well, missiles and aircraft is the answer.  Seek info if you want more details.  I just point it out because it's relevant to the discussion at hand.  

Alex has pretty obviously mirrored this development with the way fleets and tech levels are done in Starfarer.  IE: older ships were "before the advent of modern strike fighters..."  So we see a certain amount of relationship there.  

However, you make a strong point.  Older designs can be used exactly as you suggest.  IE: group the big ships together and let them crawl along destroying anything that dares to engage them.  And that works, rather well... against the AI.  It doesn't work at all if I'm controlling the "hi-tech" fleet.  

Here is why.  Get a paragon, put 4x tach lances on it, and some of whatever else you like (especially some AM blasters on the front).  Now, send out fighter/frigate scouts, and sit back and lay waste to the opposing teams scouts and frigs.  Once you've reduced the local fighter population, and frigate population to effectively ZERO, you can focus your fire on the big fat armored targets slowly moving in on you.  Once you can focus your fire, it's actually really easy to take them down.  Mainly because 1 Paragon + assorted fighters + 2x LRM ships can put a great many LRM's into the air, and with a little proper timing, one or more waves will hit armor, which won't last long.  

Or you could do what I do, and have 3x hi-tech energy based ships, all running maxed out Tach Lances and as many LRMs as I can get (10x tach lances total).  I fly a tempest, and leave all 3 tach ships in fire support position behind the front lines.  I fly around and scout out targets with my Tempest, and the cap ships eat everything I see from outside contact range.  It's absurd how powerful this setup is, and how utterly unable to compensate the older ship designs are.  My suggestion, as far as it goes, is to add a counter weapon (C+cannon please), which give some true range to ballistic based ships.  Alternately, you could nerf the Tachyon Lance, but that would make me sad.  

I'm not trying to argue one side is better than the other, just providing some counter-point.  I happen to really like the ballistic weapons, the ships... not so much.  Personally, I've experimented with giving all Ballistic weapons a 30% range increase, and expect for certain weird outcomes (machine guns, and all fighters with ballistics), it works very well to make ballistic based ships more worthy of fighting against their more advanced brethren.

As far as face to face battles go, I think the game engine/AI combination tends to heavily favor ballistic ships due to their ability to overload/flux raise the enemy FAR more quickly than energy weapons can.  (without raising your own flux really high)  Also, partly due to the way shields are handled, the AI tends to get into a lot more trouble when it doesn't have good armor on the ship it's flying.  And doubly so when it's own weapons exceed it's ability to vent the flux.  IE: any ship where all weapons on full auto maxes the flux quickly, which is really just energy ships.
Logged

Temstar

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2012, 06:59:14 PM »

It does though, low tech ships have so much firepower they can often fight ships one class above them to a standstill. Enforcer can easily outgun a Falcon and fight Eagle to a stand still (Aurora is a bit harder, but that's 10 v 17 FP); Dominator with its two Gauss Cannons, three Harpoon launchers and forests of PD can take on capital ships can nearly fight them on even terms; and Onslaught with its huge forward battery and all round flak can't be taken down with anything short of another Onslaught or significantly larger FP worth of ships.

That and low tech isn't exactly low in capping power, with very cheap and fast Talon that flood the map and always outnumber other fighters, or the powerful and shield raping Broadsword that walks all over Xyphos.
Logged

Flare

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2012, 07:00:08 PM »

Are thunders and broadswords considered low tech?
Logged
Quote from: Thana
Quote from: Alex

The battle station is not completely operational, shall we say.

"Now witness the firepower of this thoroughly buggy and unoperational batt... Oh, hell, you know what? Just ignore the battle station, okay?"

Iscariot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2012, 07:06:10 PM »

Thunders are midline, but I digress that Broadswords are mostly agreed upon to be super OP.

That said, I pretty much disagree with the assertion that low tech destroyers and cruisers punch above their weight. 'S just not true. The Medusa will destroy an Enforcer, and it's much faster and much more versatile. The Aurora's so fast and has so much flux that just by that virtue alone it can wear a Dominator down pretty easily. As for the Onslaught, I can destroy it alone with my Conquest. Big deal, I'm unimpressed. Nevermind the fact that they move slower than chilled molasses, ensuring that by the time you engage them, you have plenty of bombers ready to rip into their unsupported flanks.

The only reason Hegemony fleets can give me trouble at all is that they go substantially over the 200 fleet point total, and even then, it's just an occasional wrecked destroyer, and I still rarely field my entire fleet. Mobility dominates. Period.
Logged

The idea is that the various tech levels represent different - not "better" - ways to do things.

Flare

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: Low tech is not underpowered at all
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2012, 07:14:42 PM »

I think the prevalence of kinetics in the Hegemony and the wide usage of beams in TT basically seal the deal for the Hegemony.

Comparing yourself against the AI in a thought experiment is all good and well, but I think if you were to really test whether or not a factor in the game is OP, it'd be player against player instead. To this, we get the advantages of each side maximized to its full potential and weaknesses exploited accordingly.
Logged
Quote from: Thana
Quote from: Alex

The battle station is not completely operational, shall we say.

"Now witness the firepower of this thoroughly buggy and unoperational batt... Oh, hell, you know what? Just ignore the battle station, okay?"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4