Print

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

Yes

33 (67.3%)

No

7 (14.3%)

Not sure

9 (18.4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[Trensicourt]

Just why?

It doesn't make sense thematically or for balance. Thematically because deploying for combat is different from daily use. Balance because there are a million exceptions, and current biases, such as low-tech being punished for it.

I don't think I am the first to question or the last to, at least for this update. Separating these two concepts allows for much easier tuning, balancing, and for some, removing the need for hull-mods.

[SCC]

It's totally possible to have different deployment and maintenance stats, and in fact the game used to have them different, but Alex changed them to be the same for the sake of simplicity.

[coldiceEVO]

They are different with "high maintenance", "efficiency overhaul", or some of the (D) mods.

[Alex]

Yeah, the values are already separate, but the preferred way of *making* them not-the-same is through a built-in hullmod to signal it more clearly to the player.

[Histidine]

My understanding is that the thing punishing low tech isn't DP == maintenance cost (if it's worth the supplies to deploy, it's worth the monthly maintenance cost) but the inflated fuel and crew requirements.

[Alex]

Indeed! And they're both thematic - and, I mean, some kind of low-maintenance hullmod on Low Tech to offset this might not be out of place. At least, on the high-fuel ones, which are the Burn Drive ones generally, iirc.

I also wonder if having them pack a bit more punch per DP than other options - and being worth the extra expense in this way - might not be more interesting, though.

[Ad Astra]

Indeed! And they're both thematic - and, I mean, some kind of low-maintenance hullmod on Low Tech to offset this might not be out of place. At least, on the high-fuel ones, which are the Burn Drive ones generally, iirc.

Would having CR recovery and repairs cheaper/faster be possible or would it be difficult to implement? I'd imagine a more basic technology would mean maintenance and repairs would be significantly more simple, being a nice bonus especially when fighting often, while not causing too much of a buff in combat.
I've always felt Low tech fails more in the campaign aspect (because theoretically they are balanced around being cheaper but they end up being more expensive) than in the combat aspect (if they were cheaper their somewhat inferior performance wouldn't be so harsh on the player's finances).

If recovery is cheaper and faster, having to recover and salvage ships after battle becomes less punishing for those hulls, further supporting a D-mod playstyle. From there, notions such as a certain discount when restoring a low tech ship and the like could very much work towards slowly undermining High tech as the current meta. It's a rather complex subject, but a considerable economic stimulus towards certain hulls/playstyles is certainly a way to move player preferences.
What would fit both theme and gameplay the most would be for low tech to be considerably cheaper when sustaining casualties, and high tech being the most expensive, this would give leeway to how stronger high tech ships can be sometimes while adding a more considerable risk to using these ships. Regardless of what some people say, money matters during most of the campaign or all of it if you don't have an extremely efficient way of playing, so cheaper costs would certainly win many people over.

[SCC]

Both making LT ships cheaper (50% less maintenance for cruisers and 75% for capitals) or just buffing their capabilities would work. Doom isn't cheap, but you don't see anyone complaining about that.

[ElPresidente]

Yeah, the values are already separate, but the preferred way of *making* them not-the-same is through a built-in hullmod to signal it more clearly to the player.

Balancing trough a hull mod instead of a stat in the ship_data seems counter-intuitive to me, especially when ship data contains DP and supply costs. When a player buys/checks a ship, he can see it's stats, so why exactly do you think a hullmod makes it clearer is beyond me.

[SCC]

Because players don't read.

[TotenKopf]

I feel like DP=maintenance is arbitrary. Another way to look at it is that I haven't seen a strong argument why it is better, let alone good. We wouldn't make the case that price=performance when comparing automobiles.

The differences between high and low tech seem to be essential qualities in this case. If this is true, I think the values should be reflected inherently in the ship profile. Hull mods are great, but then we already have carve outs for shield cost, efficiency and the like because it wouldn't make sense to express these as mods. I suspect people F1 all the time, maybe more than looking at hull mods. This might just be a philosophical difference in the end.

[KDR_11k]

It feels a bit like low tech should be less (or high-tech more) affected by D-mods since simpler design and more manual operation means easier fixing and less impact from smaller defects while the high precision design of high tech ships would lend itself to bits being much harder to find replacements for and even small issues having a large impact. As the military says, you put a bullet into a map, it's a map with a hole in it. You put a bullet into an electronic map and you got a brick.

[Locklave]

Indeed! And they're both thematic - and, I mean, some kind of low-maintenance hullmod on Low Tech to offset this might not be out of place. At least, on the high-fuel ones, which are the Burn Drive ones generally, iirc.

I believe a number of people, including me, who love the low tech ships would find that a breath of fresh air.

[Alex]

I'll just say, Low Tech will *definitely* be getting some improvements in various ways, ranging from new ships to changes to some existing ships/skills/mechanics. A "low maintenance" hullmod for some ships isn't off the table, either, but I'm not sure it'll be necessary.

Thematically, I could easily also see low-tech being just messier overall - fuel guzzlers that need more crew and a decent amount of supplies, but that perform well. It's the last part that there's a bit - not *too* much; they're already viable, just not as good! - of a problem with. So, improve low tech, rein some of the high-end frigates in a bit, and I think it'll be good. And whether this involves lower maintenance for Low Tech ships, well, we'll see.

[TotenKopf]

Well, that addresses all of my concerns. Thanks!

/Thread