Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Locklave]

Low Tech ships

1. Use the most fuel, by design
2. Use the most crew, by design
3. Use the most supplies, not by design but in practice because they take more hull damage meaning they use many times more supplies
4. Use the most crew. This again why? Because of 3, more damage means more losses of crew, meaning more base crew required
5. Use the most money, by design because of all the above and especially 2 & 4

I made a thread like this some time ago and it was unfocused, this is not.

High tech is benefiting from crazy power creep, SO was taken away from SP because of High tech power creep. Low tech lost SO SP because of High tech. Low tech design and gameplay are punishing with no upside.

[Burvjradzite]

That's the point. Powder is better than bow and arrows. High tech best tech.

[HeatSeekers]

Low tech ships are more comfy

[SCC]

You could have brought up some numbers to illustrate your point, like I did previously.

Spoiler

[close]

[Null Ganymede]

The Logistics tree is a low-tech tree.

It's not like that one skill that reduces overload duration where the better option is just to not get overloaded. It expands your endurance before needing to resupply by letting your fleet run purely off of combat loot despite higher fuel costs and armor repairs.

The upside is that ballistic weapons are amazing. By correctly exploiting multiple damage types in both flagship and AI-controlled ships, you can match and exceed high-tech performance.

[Scorpixel]

That's the point. Powder is better than bow and arrows. High tech best tech.

It has been clarified multiple times that low/mid/high tech is a doctrine difference more than a technological one, and not a tier progression.
The current "low tech" hulls are of an older design but have long since been modernised to current (pre-collapse) standards, the lore state everywhere that modular weaponry and shields weren't a thing at all at the time, yet they have both.

Again, there would be no point bothering to have those exist if they were obsolete, imagine being the clown asked to code a spear in an fps.

Right now low tech gets the shortest stick in every competition, be it terrible logistics, mobility, abilities, flux, and even dps/tanking directly related to the previous, i'd rather have 600 flux, high mobility, crap armour and super shields rather than a ship getting a stroke with two medium kinetics that gets danced around by uberfrigates.

[Burvjradzite]

That's the point. Powder is better than bow and arrows. High tech best tech.

It has been clarified multiple times that low/mid/high tech is a doctrine difference more than a technological one, and not a tier progression.
The current "low tech" hulls are of an older designed but have long been modernised to current (pre-collapse) standards, the lore state everywhere that modular weaponry and shields weren't a thing at all at the time, yet they have both.

That's exactly that i talking about. High tech is better doctrine because we are the player and the player tends to need those that high tech provides as a mercenary, as an explorer, as a quick strike force. Hegemony while using mostly low-tech had become the strongest power in the sector with the most markets there is, poor tri-tach comes only with few. That's because on a large scale of things low-tech doctrine is indeed better, for the large army, for the territory domination and defending it. High tech is the best just because it suits player needs better. It takes a lot of effort from the player to make a low-tech run viable, it's like a hardcore mode, and i see nothing wrong with it.

[KDR_11k]

Just make low tech and high tech like modern low and high tech gear, after a number of battles the high tech ship just breaks and would cost more to repair than to replace so you need to buy a new one . Tri-Tachyon does not respect the Right to Repair.

[Lucky33]

That's the point. Powder is better than bow and arrows. High tech best tech.

It has been clarified multiple times that low/mid/high tech is a doctrine difference more than a technological one, and not a tier progression.
The current "low tech" hulls are of an older designed but have long been modernised to current (pre-collapse) standards, the lore state everywhere that modular weaponry and shields weren't a thing at all at the time, yet they have both.

That's exactly that i talking about. High tech is better doctrine because we are the player and the player tends to need those that high tech provides as a mercenary, as an explorer, as a quick strike force. Hegemony while using mostly low-tech had become the strongest power in the sector with the most markets there is, poor tri-tach comes only with few. That's because on a large scale of things low-tech doctrine is indeed better, for the large army, for the territory domination and defending it. High tech is the best just because it suits player needs better. It takes a lot of effort from the player to make a low-tech run viable, it's like a hardcore mode, and i see nothing wrong with it.

High-tech is not a doctrine. Paragon was build to be the best battleship. Just as Onslaught. Mora is a carrier.

The current problem of the Low Tech is what having an advanced reactor is simply better than any other option. It reliable enough, it provides more than enough firepower and protection and it doesn't cost much. All of this in the postapocalyptic setup.

After WWIII went full nuclear, somalian pirates are highjacking a SSBN and using it for their pirate business? Sure, why not.

[Igncom1]

The paragon was built to make TT a lot of dosh.

[Lucky33]

Everything was built for it.

[Igncom1]

Everything was built for it.

 

[writeru]

I think there should be (somehow) a low, midline and high tech skill tree. Maybe a 4th tree with all the 3 options inside (but you can only choose of them for each level)


So we could make certain playstyles better if you want to. You know, adding skills like "improve the armor of all low tech ships in 50/100/150/200" or "ballistic weapons cost 2 less CR for all low tech" Stuff like this. So depending on how you spend your skills any tech level will be good for you

[Igncom1]

Honestly just buff the basic stats of the low tech ships. Even if they aren't quite as good per deployment point as midline or hightech ships they have no real reason to be hilariously expensive. Luddic mechanics are cheap and so should running these ol' reliable designs that don't require breaking the laws of reality and morality to run.

[Thaago]

In terms of buffing low tech across the board: its really not needed. Low tech isn't the strongest because they don't have any good frigates, but they aren't nearly as bad as people think they are... below is a result of an omega fight I just did. Not optimized and under the deployment limit, but with the correct missiles (sabots and harpoons instead of reapers) and gun choices (emphasis on kinetic) for the enemy. The Legion and Moras badly underperformed because of how amazing Omegas are vs fighters, especially unshielded fighters, and 4 of my 207 DP were spent on a multi-D mod Lasher for funsies. If I really want to optimize the fight first I'd get at least another onslaught to replace the legion, probably some dominators to replace the Mora, could upgrade more ships to XIV, could take T5L for the free hullmod, etc. This is a fairly typical result (losing 2 enforcers + a lasher), though sometimes I'll lose an extra Mora, Enforcer, or once even the Dominator, and every once in a while I totally screw up the first 20 seconds (the only really difficult part of the fight) and lose a lot.

Sorry about the size of these, they are just screencaps.

Spoiler

[close]