Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]

Author Topic: Low Tech ship non viablility  (Read 11578 times)

Aereto

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #165 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.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3458
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #166 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.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 6140
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #167 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.
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3017
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #168 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.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1248
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #169 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?
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3017
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #170 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.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Terethall

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #171 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...
Logged

agnar

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #172 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)
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #173 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.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2673
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #174 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]