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

[intrinsic_parity]

High tech has bad range and inefficient energy weapons (compared to ballistics).

Comparing to the last patch, high tech had even less efficient weaponry (pulse laser, ir pulse, and ion pulser all got major efficiency buffs on this patch) that exaggerated the advantage of low/mid tech even more, plus the addition of bonus energy damage from skills.

On the last patch, I still avoided low tech because of logistics, but ships like dominator were much better compared to this patch. I think it's also worth noting that the onslaught and enforcer both got major buffs on this patch, and are fairly useable.

[Alex]

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.

I think that's where the dissonance comes from. If low tech is less efficient, why not everyone is using high tech then? Especially when in the real world the main limiting factor for military hardware is always development cost and maintenance cost.

I mean, I gave a possible answer in the next reply

Edit: just to clarify, I mean the idea of them being a touch more DP-efficient than the alternatives in terms of combat performance.

...You know, now that I think about this - issue with low-tech being too expensive for what it offers to you was just as much of an issue in 0.9.1, and those costs were more hidden and less obvious than simple maintenance (increased fuel costs, when you are uncertain as to how much will you travel, and obviously the salaries) and yet people used them successfully and hardly anyone realised low-tech was logistically worse. Making DP and maintenance the same might be simple, but it's not necessary at all. Players will do perfectly fine regardless.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. None of that's changed between 0.9.1a and now - what am I missing here?

[SCC]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. None of that's changed between 0.9.1a and now - what am I missing here?

You are missing that low-tech had bigger running costs than they seemed (even disproportionately big, in comparison to actual performance), just like everyone else missed it too, and it didn't matter to anyone! So neither should it matter that DP and maintenance are not the same figure.

[Alex]

No, definitely wasn't missing that! I thought you meant that something about 0.95a made it more apparent. But I mean, this has come up with 0.9.1a as well too, though, so I'm not sure about "everyone missed it".

Even if they had, though, I'm not following the logic of "the stat didn't matter enough for people to notice so let's split it up and make it more detailed", that seems... wrong. Like, that's literally just a case where you want fewer stats, not more, because you want stats to have meaning.

(Edit: And, I mean, they're already separate stats and can also be modified with hullmods and that's... fine? It's not like "needing to add a hullmod" is holding me up from reducing low tech's maintenance costs, it's that I'm not sure it's a good idea and there are other ways to go. So the whole angle of "but you can split the stats up" to me is extremely tangential - they're already separate anyway, and it's easy to do even if the base values stay the same, so... that aspect just seems like a non-issue.)

[SCC]

No, definitely wasn't missing that! I thought you meant that something about 0.95a made it more apparent. But I mean, this has come up with 0.9.1a as well too, though, so I'm not sure about "everyone missed it".

I know it came up earlier, too, because I brought it up earlier, too. I thought it was unfair to count it as anyone having noticed it, though.

[Locklave]

No, definitely wasn't missing that! I thought you meant that something about 0.95a made it more apparent. But I mean, this has come up with 0.9.1a as well too, though, so I'm not sure about "everyone missed it".

Even if they had, though, I'm not following the logic of "the stat didn't matter enough for people to notice so let's split it up and make it more detailed", that seems... wrong. Like, that's literally just a case where you want fewer stats, not more, because you want stats to have meaning.

It is more apparent now. The problem is too costly to ignore in .95.

Industry tree in .91 had excellent logistics support. People could overlook the problem without feeling too much pain for ignoring the cost if they invested heavy in industry.
Industry tree in .95 has poor logistics support. Even the people still playing industry heavy builds fully feel the cost.

Because Industry is a hybrid combat tree now instead of a logistics tree for w/e reason.

[Ad Astra]

I know it came up earlier, too, because I brought it up earlier, too. I thought it was unfair to count it as anyone having noticed it, though.

It has always  been a thing (personally I've never used low tech extensively for that very reason) but it became more apparent in 0.95 because of several reasons. One of the strongest of those reasons is that every ship counts now more than ever, enemies field fleets that are equal or even greater in power than yours, while also being able to afford reinforcement after reinforcement. Officer skills are more powerful than before, while fleet skills are weaker and more situational most of the time (there are exceptions), so trying to bridge the power gap became more important, any loss of efficiency needs to be eliminated, and so low tech becomes a luxury we can't really afford most of the times.

I think Low tech should be considerably cheaper, making them stronger would feel wrong immersion wise, while making them more economic feels perfect.

[ElPresidente]

I think Low tech should be considerably cheaper, making them stronger would feel wrong immersion wise, while making them more economic feels perfect.

That depends in which way you make them stronger.

High EMP resistance AND/OR faster engine/weapon repairs? Both of those feel right for low-tech.
Less crew lost on hull hit?

[Locklave]

...and so low tech becomes a luxury we can't really afford most of the times...

This right here speaks volumes.

[Sominar]

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.

Maybe another possible issue is that there is only one single grade of crew and fuel in the game? I can imagine a low-tech ship needing far, far more crew acting as dumb labor while high-tech's automated systems and energy weapons, even if needing less crew to operate, need a far more skilled and capable crew that'd inevitably ask for a far higher pay than a crew whose job is just to move the gigantic hellbore shells from one place to another. So far crew salary is exclusively tied to number, not to what it's going to be doing, like splitting it into normal "Crew" and high grade "Engineers/Technicians" where low-tech needs more of the former, but while high-tech needs less it needs so much more of the latter that at the end it's costing it more in total crew salary.

The same reasoning would go to fuel. I can imagine an onslaught running on pretty much anything while something like a paragon needs a very specific refined mix, but I don't picture it being anything but hell to juggle two fueltypes. All I can think of is abstracting it with a way higher maintenance cost, or as you said, just lowering the maintenance of low-tech ones since the engines might be robust enough for just percussive maintenance to keep them running forever.