Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: HELMUT on September 16, 2018, 01:43:32 AM

Title: The Wasp sucks
Post by: HELMUT on September 16, 2018, 01:43:32 AM
The Wasp fighter is the second best interceptor in the game just behind the Spark. It is fast, its PD laser don't miss, and its proximity mine will create a death zone against any other fighters and missiles. With 6 fighters by wings, they also tend to outnumber any other crafts. All in all, without a doubt an ideal interceptor.

Or at least in theory.

For some context, in some of my recent campaigns, i have been experimenting eschewing Point Defenses on my ships. To compensate for that, i assign an interceptor filled carrier as an escort to whatever needs it the most. With the escort order, the carrier will send its fighters to protect its designated target when in danger. And it worked! I was now flying a PD free fleet, delegating the anti-fighter and anti-missile duty to a bunch of escort Mora filled with Interceptors.

Initially, the Wasp seemed like a perfect fit for that role, unfortunately i quickly noted how... Absent my interceptors have been in all of my battles. They properly showed up for the first clash between fleets, and then started to disappear, leaving my PD-less ships vulnerable to missiles and bombers. Surprisingly, that issue was much less noticeable with say, Talons, or some other mod interceptors, which were steadily covering my butt for the entire fight.

After a digging a bit deeper, i found the issue with my Wasps, and it wasn't the interceptors themselves, but the carriers. The replacement rate would quickly reach the 30% mark, only trickling down a few lone fighters once in a while to the frontline. With other fighters, it would rarely go below 50%. There's one reasons for that : Wasps are fragile, half as tough as a Talon, so they tend to die a lot. And because there's 6 of those per wing, that makes for a lot of dead fighters, which degrade the replacement rate very, very quickly. Once the carrier reaches 30% RT, the interceptors can no longer fullfill their role, and getting back up to an acceptable RT level becomes nearly impossible, especially during hectic battles.

Two solutions to fix this. Either makes the Wasp tougher to prevent it from dying in droves. Armoring it doesn't seems appropriate for a high-tech drone, as for a shielded Wasp like back when Starsector was Starfarer, that would make it too much like the Spark in my opinion.

The other solution, much simpler and appropriate in my opinion, would be lowering the replacement time. It will still die by the bucketload, but i would matter less. I tested it with a modified base replacement time of 2, then 3 instead of 5 (like the Talon). BRT of 2 allows for a constant screening around 90/100% replacement rate in small skirmishes, and would go down around 40/50% in intense battles. BRT of 3 doesn't makes the replacement rate go below 80% in small battles, but will eventually reach 30% during larger encounters.
 
For reference, i did most of my testing on the missions Hornet's Nest and Nothing Personal with autopilot, with a Wasp loaded Heron as the escort in both scenarios.

Also, kinda off-topic, but not completely. I would like the ability to target a friendly ship on the tactical screen. It's possible to do so for enemies, but not allies, and would be useful when you want to send your fighters to cover one of your ships that is too far to be "targeted" normally.

Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Cyan Leader on September 16, 2018, 04:03:27 AM
Seems fair, I like the second solution more too.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: mehgamer on September 16, 2018, 04:09:22 AM
See, I've found similar results, but I maintain very enthusiastically that wasps are still the best single-wing interceptors in the game.  I just also believe that it's bad form at best, and tactically suicidal at worst, to exclusively mount light interceptors on a multi-wing carrier.  And on single wing ones, I rarely give them anything but more multi-purpose craft.  This offsets the fragile-ness of wasps and similar craft, in addition to granting them a thicker screen to hide behind.  The longer you keep your wasps in the area, the more proxy mines they disgorge.  You can also, technically, say the same for the more wasps you deploy, except wasps alone are - as you've found - incredibly fragile and incapable of self defense.  Having thicker, more durable fighters that last longer in a fight limits how many ships the carrier has to be constantly replacing, a strategy I also used in one of the AI Tournaments.

While sending 18 wasps per mora into the fray may make the first burn as large as possible, you'd notice quite quickly that the number of proxy mines dropped immediately won't be 18 - some of your flying dots got shot down already!  And since proxy mines have no delay fuse and negligible friendly fire potential (the only fighters at risk are the ones without functioning engines), you may find that they're actually better when deployed during a dogfight rather than while approaching - it's like a sudden burst of explosive damage centered roughly around the wasp, detonating directly in the center of a group of enemy fighters.  Harder to shoot down on approach, and far more likely to hit multiple targets.

In a game as varied in content as this, I also think that using exclusively one item such as a ship, weapon, or fighter in this case is not representative of the game at large.  Things are intended to have various tradeoffs both straightforward and contextual, and refusing this design in favor of simply brute forcing a standardization means you'll inevitably exaggerate the weaknesses of your chosen subject.

Also, Carthago delenda est Talons are overpowered.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Inventor Raccoon on September 16, 2018, 04:16:30 AM
Perhaps a test to see if Wasps fare better if some wings are substituted with Gladius or other fighters designed for bulking up squishier fighter groups is in order.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Megas on September 16, 2018, 05:57:22 AM
HELMUT explained why I do not use Wasps.  They drag replacement rate down, which is the king of stats for carriers (except maybe top speed to kite-and-snipe with said fighters).  It also does not help that their PD lasers stink at killing big ships.

One solution, lower their OP cost to 0.  Talons are too strong at 0 OP, but Wasps are too weak at 5 OP.  Yes, Wasps kill replacement, but you get what you pay for, except you do not with Wasps at 5 OP.  Of course, quickening replacement as HELMUT suggesting maybe be more fun than that.

When I did my fighter tests over a year ago, Wasps performed the worst out of all of the fighters at killing ships.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: cardgame on September 16, 2018, 06:35:53 AM
Well, that's literally the last thing Wasps were ever designed to do.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Gothars on September 16, 2018, 06:48:37 AM
I think this might be important for the conversation:

Part of the reason for rate being so important right now is that it's... bugged. That is, it applies twice - a 50% replacement rate means .5 * .5 = an actual 25% replacement rate. So, anything that directly helps with it has an outsized influence.

I *think* it'll be less important with that fixed, since a carrier is much less crippled even when it's down to 30%. I mean, 30% is still bad, but it's not "completely useless as a carrier" as it is when it's actually 9%.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TaLaR on September 16, 2018, 06:58:45 AM
Wasps perform well in the first wave (against other fighters), but then they can't hold advantage due to extreme replacement drain and can't exploit the small windows they gained due to very low dps.

Also, why bother with Wasps, when Flash bombers are about as good at killing fighters (when fighter waves collide head on), and suffer way less attrition (their bombs are the best saturation distraction). While also being a real threat to larger ships.

Fixing replacement rate applied twice bug shouldn't help Wasps much - at least not in context of comparison against other fighters (which would get same benefit).
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Megas on September 16, 2018, 08:18:17 AM
I would like fighters being useful beyond killing fighters, because fighters are merely missiles that use a different mount.  If all Wasps are good for is anti-fighter, then all I have done it put detachable PD lasers on my ship.

Quote
Also, why bother with Wasps, when Flash bombers are about as good at killing fighters (when fighter waves collide head on), and suffer way less attrition (their bombs are the best saturation distraction). While also being a real threat to larger ships.
For that matter, why bother with Wasps when Talons can do the job for free and be a threat to more than fighters only?
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: AxleMC131 on September 16, 2018, 11:15:15 PM
I would like fighters being useful beyond killing fighters, because fighters are merely missiles that use a different mount.  If all Wasps are good for is anti-fighter, then all I have done it put detachable PD lasers on my ship.

Anti-ship fighters exist: They're called bombers. Wasps are designed to be extremely good at killing other fighters, and utterly terrible at anything else - why is that a problem?  ??? Why is it a problem to have specialized content with particular roles?

You're basically talking about using a lorry in a Nascar race, and then complaining that it isn't fast enough. Well no s***, but you won't exactly see a race car hauling a hundred tonnes of cargo between cities either. Not everything has to be good at everything.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Goumindong on September 16, 2018, 11:26:19 PM
Interceptors kill missiles. Fighters kill interceptors/bombers/fighters. Bombers kill frigates+

There are a few fighter types (broadsword/warthog) that are good at killing frigates+ And a few interceptors ok at killing fighters. (The heavy one with 8k range, and the xyphos)

The wasp is really good at killing missiles. Probably the most effective of the interceptors. If you have proper fighter cover so they don’t get shot down then they will kill a lot of missiles.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TaLaR on September 17, 2018, 12:13:27 AM
Interceptors kill missiles. Fighters kill interceptors/bombers/fighters. Bombers kill frigates+

There are a few fighter types (broadsword/warthog) that are good at killing frigates+ And a few interceptors ok at killing fighters. (The heavy one with 8k range, and the xyphos)

The wasp is really good at killing missiles. Probably the most effective of the interceptors. If you have proper fighter cover so they don’t get shot down then they will kill a lot of missiles.

I'd say no interceptors are really good against proper missile attack. Squalls/Annihilators/Locusts/Flash mines/Piranha bombs all easily overwhelm Wasps, killing a lot of them in process (PD fighters do not try to avoid collision with interception target). Then you just mix in some Longbows/Daggers to exploit opening created by saturation attacks.

Back to topic of improving Wasp - I think mostly behavioral changes could work too. Since most of Wasp usefulness comes from Stinger mine, they should immediately resupply on using them up, like bombers. To make better use of PD beam in process, it should have 360 rotation.
Also make them use said mines against larger targets, possibly only when executing engage order to avoid compromising defensive functions. Considering how fast wasps are as a delivery platform, hitting even faster frigates with mines would not be a problem. This would also help with survival - dropping mine and going back is much more survivable than trying to stick.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Megas on September 17, 2018, 05:06:50 AM
Anti-ship fighters exist: They're called bombers.
Actually, that is all of the fighters, except Wasps, and the so-called support fighters Mining Pods and Xyphos.  If you min-max carrier stuff, you can deploy enough of any wing, except the aforementioned three, and they will kill anything.  Some take longer to kill than others, but they will get the job done.  This is very handy when you have a big slow carrier (like Legion), and the enemy is a bunch of fast, cowardly ships (anything sub-capital) that refuse to engage.

At least with Mining Pod, they are free (but why take them when Talons are superior - and common as dirt!)  Xyphos is outperformed by the much cheaper Claw, and their beam range is not as long as the motherships' weapons for those ships that want to kite from maximum range.

There is a reason why I call fighters better missiles than missiles.

Why is it a problem to have specialized content with particular roles?
Not a problem per se, but when Wasps are only good for one thing, while nearly every other fighter is good and/or better for multiple things, including the thing Wasps may be good at, not to mention Talons are free and Open Market common, why use Wasps?  The main problem with Wasps is they are too fragile and will drag replacement rate down.  Mix Wasps for your carrier, and the rate will fall because they die so easily.  It does not help that Wasps are not good at damaging most things either.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Goumindong on September 17, 2018, 07:59:09 AM
Interceptors kill missiles. Fighters kill interceptors/bombers/fighters. Bombers kill frigates+

There are a few fighter types (broadsword/warthog) that are good at killing frigates+ And a few interceptors ok at killing fighters. (The heavy one with 8k range, and the xyphos)

The wasp is really good at killing missiles. Probably the most effective of the interceptors. If you have proper fighter cover so they don’t get shot down then they will kill a lot of missiles.

I'd say no interceptors are really good against proper missile attack. Squalls/Annihilators/Locusts/Flash mines/Piranha bombs all easily overwhelm Wasps, killing a lot of them in process (PD fighters do not try to avoid collision with interception target). Then you just mix in some Longbows/Daggers to exploit opening created by saturation attacks.

Back to topic of improving Wasp - I think mostly behavioral changes could work too. Since most of Wasp usefulness comes from Stinger mine, they should immediately resupply on using them up, like bombers. To make better use of PD beam in process, it should have 360 rotation.
Also make them use said mines against larger targets, possibly only when executing engage order to avoid compromising defensive functions. Considering how fast wasps are as a delivery platform, hitting even faster frigates with mines would not be a problem. This would also help with survival - dropping mine and going back is much more survivable than trying to stick.

Most interceptors are really good against proper missile attacks and wasps are by far the best. Its true that some weapons overwhelm them, but not usually the particularly dangerous ones, and not usually in quantities that would be reasonable.

A Wasp is 5 OP and will easily stop a wave of bombers missiles/bombs (10+ OP) or the rockets from a medium sized launcher(non squall) (10 OP). They aren't perfect, but they don't have to be in order to be effective. They bring 24 OP worth of PD laser at likely an extended range to your own PD lasers. Its actually cheaper to fix a makeshift hangar and a squadron of wasps than it is to fit 6 PD weapons on your own ship*... And sure a fleet of like 6 wasps is going to be weak against a fleet of 2 broadswords, 2  longbows, and 2 tridents but they should be. The broadswords are anti-wasp devices and the total OP cost of the second is 60 higher!

Wasps rearming after dropping their bomb is OK but they should only do this if they're in recall mode. They're interceptors and not bombers and the proximity mine is there to dissuade fighters/take out additional missiles. 360 deg firing won't make much of a difference.

*At all levels of ship with the exception of capital. If you assume the 10 flux/1 OP cost associated with firing the weapon must also be accounted for then you're positive on all ship sizes.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TaLaR on September 17, 2018, 02:09:00 PM
Most interceptors are really good against proper missile attacks and wasps are by far the best. Its true that some weapons overwhelm them, but not usually the particularly dangerous ones, and not usually in quantities that would be reasonable.

A Wasp is 5 OP and will easily stop a wave of bombers missiles/bombs (10+ OP) or the rockets from a medium sized launcher(non squall) (10 OP). They aren't perfect, but they don't have to be in order to be effective. They bring 24 OP worth of PD laser at likely an extended range to your own PD lasers. Its actually cheaper to fix a makeshift hangar and a squadron of wasps than it is to fit 6 PD weapons on your own ship*... And sure a fleet of like 6 wasps is going to be weak against a fleet of 2 broadswords, 2  longbows, and 2 tridents but they should be. The broadswords are anti-wasp devices and the total OP cost of the second is 60 higher!

Wasps rearming after dropping their bomb is OK but they should only do this if they're in recall mode. They're interceptors and not bombers and the proximity mine is there to dissuade fighters/take out additional missiles. 360 deg firing won't make much of a difference.

*At all levels of ship with the exception of capital. If you assume the 10 flux/1 OP cost associated with firing the weapon must also be accounted for then you're positive on all ship sizes.

There is not much point in minor PD, at least for player ship. Either you go all in with flaks or need to be able to shield tank missiles (because no other PD can be relied on).
While AI may not design carries/missile ships like that, 'proper' missile attack means using heavy hitters combined with saturation/flares to counter PD. Like Broadsword x1 + Flash x2 + Longbow x2 + Dagger x1, while showering enemy with Squalls for Astral.

They are very much theoretically 6xPD laser, in practice they die against anything with turreted guns too fast if they try to engage. While ships weak enough to be kill-able by Wasps die way faster to cheaper Talons (both in OP and replenishment-drain).

Currently they do not rearm even on regroup. As for engage drop mine -> return behavior, it would greatly increase their survival rate (both due to much shorter contact and mine being PD distraction). And at 325 speed rearming won't take long. 360 turret would help in that case, since they wouldn't be able to face enemy so much while running away to rearm.
Proximity mine is clearly their main armament (looking at practical impact), not using it against target ship makes their current engage behavior quite useless - they die too quickly to try and keep mine for later.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: MesoTroniK on September 17, 2018, 03:25:38 PM
The Wasp already has a 360 degree firing arc for the PD Laser.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Gothars on September 17, 2018, 03:41:09 PM
I mostly use Wasp wings when I need reliable cover against fighters and missiles for ships that are not expected to be in the thick of the battle or act as offensive carriers. That can be sniper Sunders, flanking Medusas or just civillian ships on retreat. The wasps performs admirably in these roles, for a short time, they can protect their ward even from an overwhelming force.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Goumindong on September 17, 2018, 04:38:16 PM
Most interceptors are really good against proper missile attacks and wasps are by far the best. Its true that some weapons overwhelm them, but not usually the particularly dangerous ones, and not usually in quantities that would be reasonable.

A Wasp is 5 OP and will easily stop a wave of bombers missiles/bombs (10+ OP) or the rockets from a medium sized launcher(non squall) (10 OP). They aren't perfect, but they don't have to be in order to be effective. They bring 24 OP worth of PD laser at likely an extended range to your own PD lasers. Its actually cheaper to fix a makeshift hangar and a squadron of wasps than it is to fit 6 PD weapons on your own ship*... And sure a fleet of like 6 wasps is going to be weak against a fleet of 2 broadswords, 2  longbows, and 2 tridents but they should be. The broadswords are anti-wasp devices and the total OP cost of the second is 60 higher!

Wasps rearming after dropping their bomb is OK but they should only do this if they're in recall mode. They're interceptors and not bombers and the proximity mine is there to dissuade fighters/take out additional missiles. 360 deg firing won't make much of a difference.

*At all levels of ship with the exception of capital. If you assume the 10 flux/1 OP cost associated with firing the weapon must also be accounted for then you're positive on all ship sizes.

There is not much point in minor PD, at least for player ship. Either you go all in with flaks or need to be able to shield tank missiles (because no other PD can be relied on).
While AI may not design carries/missile ships like that, 'proper' missile attack means using heavy hitters combined with saturation/flares to counter PD. Like Broadsword x1 + Flash x2 + Longbow x2 + Dagger x1, while showering enemy with Squalls for Astral.

They are very much theoretically 6xPD laser, in practice they die against anything with turreted guns too fast if they try to engage. While ships weak enough to be kill-able by Wasps die way faster to cheaper Talons (both in OP and replenishment-drain).

Currently they do not rearm even on regroup. As for engage drop mine -> return behavior, it would greatly increase their survival rate (both due to much shorter contact and mine being PD distraction). And at 325 speed rearming won't take long. 360 turret would help in that case, since they wouldn't be able to face enemy so much while running away to rearm.
Proximity mine is clearly their main armament (looking at practical impact), not using it against target ship makes their current engage behavior quite useless - they die too quickly to try and keep mine for later.

The best defense against fighters is regular old guns sure(I like tactical lasers)*. But those regular old guns still won't shoot any missiles that do eventually get shot, so you still want some actual PD... and wasps are really good for that

*The odyssey and paragon can kill a LOT of fighters before they launch missiles with advanced optics/ITU and a pilot with gunnery skills
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Linnis on September 17, 2018, 05:09:02 PM
I would have to agree with Talar. PD has no point unless its massed, in flak form or in multiple ships with advanced optics covering eachother. Because often times not wasting the OP and slot and shield tanking anything other then sabot is better.

Two pd lasers cant reliably kill a single harpoon in most realistic cases. Wasted flux, op, and slot.

Wasps are bad because of replacement rate impact. Honestly I didn't like the recent changes onto certain fighters. Every fighter seems to becomes these weird niche roles. While not working well in most cases. Fighters suddently became "balanced" because it became more awkward to use with AI changes and weird loadouts.

Before Talons and Wasps did the same thing, distract, act as pd, and catch things.
Galdius, broadsword, and hoggy did damage as a main fighting force.
Then there were bombers ranging from slow to fast.
Defensive support fighters like Xyphos and agreesive support like Thunder.

Now aside from gladius and talons, all the fighters now feel like they are support based. Awkward and ineffective.

Some loadouts on the new fighters are too awkward. Lmg on thunder is a prime exsample.

Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Sutopia on September 17, 2018, 05:47:40 PM
I'd say no interceptors are really good against proper missile attack. Squalls/Annihilators/Locusts/Flash mines/Piranha bombs all easily overwhelm Wasps, killing a lot of them in process (PD fighters do not try to avoid collision with interception target). Then you just mix in some Longbows/Daggers to exploit opening created by saturation attacks.

I'm finding flash bombers extremely **** since they're actually deploying VT bombs in incredible amount. Those VT bombs, unless enemy got an flak array or a devastator happened to fire at the cluster, is literally death zone for EVERYTHING, including fighters, bombs, missiles, ships, you name it. Recently played vanilla game (0 mod) to find them sync attack extremely well with Longbow, making a player pilot Astral with 3 Flash 3 Longbow extremely deadly to everything.

Why bother using any interceptor or fighter when you get planes that deploy an ARRAY of VT bombs? VT shell was one of the most impressive invention in WWII, making accuracy of AA guns increased by an order of magnitude.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TaLaR on September 17, 2018, 11:14:47 PM
Some loadouts on the new fighters are too awkward. Lmg on thunder is a prime example.

DLmg + ion + swarmer is theoretically a very good synergy, BUT.
- Swarmers are same nerfed version Talons use, so almost meaningless with just 2 fighters.
- 8 OP, 15 second refit on lightly armed fighter means their practical combat ability is way below Talons.
- There is no point in mixing them with any other fighters - they'll arrive at target and die long before the rest. (frankly, can we get something like 'engage as formation' separate attack mode for carriers, with said formation being tweak-able at design time?)

Also whole concept of long range interceptor with 8000 range 450 speed is weird. I mean sure, it is the ultimate tool to hunt down a single frigate with an Astral. But why would you spend so many resources on insignificant task like this?
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Megas on September 18, 2018, 05:26:15 AM
Thunders kill things faster than the other 8 OP fighters.  Their weapons synergize well enough that they can hit any defense.

True, their defenses are weak.  Weak enough that they were useless when they had IR Pulse Laser instead of Ion Cannon for one release.  With Ion Cannon, they are dangerous again.

Also whole concept of long range interceptor with 8000 range 450 speed is weird. I mean sure, it is the ultimate tool to hunt down a single frigate with an Astral. But why would you spend so many resources on insignificant task like this?
Because they can kill more than frigates if stacked.  That said, there are stronger options like Warthogs or Remnant fighters if you can spare more OP.

Aside from that, Thunder is primarily a Claw substitute if Claws are unavailable.  Thunders are a bit more common.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: lethargie on September 19, 2018, 06:31:58 AM
Thunder are also good when pursuing a retreating fleet. They make pretty good interceptor too since they can disable retreating fighter.
The AI tend to waste a lot of fighter time ordering them for one side to the other of the battlefield, this happen less on thunder.

As for wasp, I dont think I ever used them. But I tend to use very little fighter and they don't seem all that useful when outnumbered.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Wyvern on September 19, 2018, 06:38:09 PM
I recently went and looked through some of my own old posts, back from when fighters weren't tied to carriers.  And the interesting thing I found is that, at that time, I really liked the wasp wings... but I was also deploying them in much larger numbers than is currently practical.

For example, a swarm of thirty wasps (that's five wings) in support of an Odyssey is a rather different situation than the current twelve wasps you can install.

Maybe they just need more than six fighters per wing?
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Retry on September 19, 2018, 07:35:09 PM
I recently went and looked through some of my own old posts, back from when fighters weren't tied to carriers.  And the interesting thing I found is that, at that time, I really liked the wasp wings... but I was also deploying them in much larger numbers than is currently practical.

For example, a swarm of thirty wasps (that's five wings) in support of an Odyssey is a rather different situation than the current twelve wasps you can install.

Maybe they just need more than six fighters per wing?
Wasps already have the largest wings in the game.

I'm a bit curious as to how exactly fighter CR increases and is drained from a mechanics/mathematical perspective, that might give some insight as to how the Wasp could be improved.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TJJ on September 20, 2018, 12:03:53 AM
I'm a bit curious as to how exactly fighter CR increases and is drained from a mechanics/mathematical perspective, that might give some insight as to how the Wasp could be improved.

Stand alone, that's a good point.
Both CR and fighter recovery rates are too obtuse to new, and seasoned players alike.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TaLaR on September 20, 2018, 12:39:30 AM
I'm a bit curious as to how exactly fighter CR increases and is drained from a mechanics/mathematical perspective, that might give some insight as to how the Wasp could be improved.

Stand alone, that's a good point.
Both CR and fighter recovery rates are too obtuse to new, and seasoned players alike.

Yeah, considering that replenishment-attrition dynamics is like second level of flux war, it's kind of hard to gauge whether you'll be able to slowly drain enemy carrier's rep rate by fighter attrition OR you'll just waste time trying.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Megas on September 20, 2018, 05:04:56 AM
If a wing is two-thirds full or less, it starts draining rate.  This is part of what make wings with four fighters like Talons resilient, because you must kill two fighters from that wing before rate ticks down.  A way to weaken Talon wing is to lower max count to three and it will tick down when one is dead instead of two.  (Personally, I would like Talons to have its old Swarmers back, but lower wing count to three.  Then it will be like classic Broadswords with Vulcan instead of LMG.)

If a wing is wiped out, the carrier ticks down peak performance even if there is no enemy presence.  This means if you cannot safely approach enemy Astral and the like, just stall and kill its fighters.  You will not tick down after you kill the fighters that wave, but Astral will.  Enemy carrier will tick down to zero CR first.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Cik on September 22, 2018, 02:35:51 PM
whole problem with "weak" fighters in general is that they are simply too easy to hit. what made fighters effective in ages gone by was that "midcaliber"+ weaponry was almost entirely uneffective due to the fact that autoaim accuracy wasn't being boosted by skills and hull mods (maybe hull mods depending on ver.) now that HVM can pluck fighters out of the air at 4x the fighters' own range anything that isn't shielded/phase/etc is too vulnerable.

what makes fighters redeemable now is perhaps strike strength (weaponry power) and localized superiority (many carriers vs. one ship) wasps in particular are not good because in any reasonable sized engagement they die instantly because of weaponry accuracy. to offset the capital ship gains in accuracy you're going to have to either 1. massively rebalance accuracy, firepower, range on everything else or 2. increase wasp health, add shields, or basically re-add their ability to evade incoming fire (somehow) the game is "balanced" now because anti-capital weaponry is effective against fighters but PD isn't.. which doesn't make any sense to me.

personally i think this area needs a significant looking glass placed on it. PD weaponry needs to be enhanced to be more effective, especially at protecting more than ownship, while capital weaponry needs to stop being effective at stopping fighter wing(s) once PD is in a better place and capital weaponry isn't shredding every fighter wing in it's pretty significant standoff ranges, you can look at what fighters need more closely imo.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TaLaR on September 22, 2018, 03:07:37 PM
whole problem with "weak" fighters in general is that they are simply too easy to hit. what made fighters effective in ages gone by was that "midcaliber"+ weaponry was almost entirely uneffective due to the fact that autoaim accuracy wasn't being boosted by skills and hull mods (maybe hull mods depending on ver.) now that HVM can pluck fighters out of the air at 4x the fighters' own range anything that isn't shielded/phase/etc is too vulnerable.

what makes fighters redeemable now is perhaps strike strength (weaponry power) and localized superiority (many carriers vs. one ship) wasps in particular are not good because in any reasonable sized engagement they die instantly because of weaponry accuracy. to offset the capital ship gains in accuracy you're going to have to either 1. massively rebalance accuracy, firepower, range on everything else or 2. increase wasp health, add shields, or basically re-add their ability to evade incoming fire (somehow) the game is "balanced" now because anti-capital weaponry is effective against fighters but PD isn't.. which doesn't make any sense to me.

personally i think this area needs a significant looking glass placed on it. PD weaponry needs to be enhanced to be more effective, especially at protecting more than ownship, while capital weaponry needs to stop being effective at stopping fighter wing(s) once PD is in a better place and capital weaponry isn't shredding every fighter wing in it's pretty significant standoff ranges, you can look at what fighters need more closely imo.

Accuracy was always a problem only in small skirmishes. When fighters cover whole frontal cone, and your fire density is about the same, you are going to hit alright.
The only way for fighters to have good avoidance without explicit cheat abilities (like % miss chance) would be giving them bullet-hell-player level AI and maybe improving acceleration on top of that.
Still won't save them from a TL though.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Retry on September 22, 2018, 03:56:04 PM
whole problem with "weak" fighters in general is that they are simply too easy to hit. what made fighters effective in ages gone by was that "midcaliber"+ weaponry was almost entirely uneffective due to the fact that autoaim accuracy wasn't being boosted by skills and hull mods (maybe hull mods depending on ver.) now that HVM can pluck fighters out of the air at 4x the fighters' own range anything that isn't shielded/phase/etc is too vulnerable.

what makes fighters redeemable now is perhaps strike strength (weaponry power) and localized superiority (many carriers vs. one ship) wasps in particular are not good because in any reasonable sized engagement they die instantly because of weaponry accuracy. to offset the capital ship gains in accuracy you're going to have to either 1. massively rebalance accuracy, firepower, range on everything else or 2. increase wasp health, add shields, or basically re-add their ability to evade incoming fire (somehow) the game is "balanced" now because anti-capital weaponry is effective against fighters but PD isn't.. which doesn't make any sense to me.

personally i think this area needs a significant looking glass placed on it. PD weaponry needs to be enhanced to be more effective, especially at protecting more than ownship, while capital weaponry needs to stop being effective at stopping fighter wing(s) once PD is in a better place and capital weaponry isn't shredding every fighter wing in it's pretty significant standoff ranges, you can look at what fighters need more closely imo.

Accuracy was always a problem only in small skirmishes. When fighters cover whole frontal cone, and your fire density is about the same, you are going to hit alright.
The only way for fighters to have good avoidance without explicit cheat abilities (like % miss chance) would be giving them bullet-hell-player level AI and maybe improving acceleration on top of that.
Still won't save them from a TL though.

Hmm... I'm usually not a big fan of RNG-related stats for a game like this, but maybe an evasion sort of stat wouldn't be too bad of an idea here, with "missed" shots going above or below the fighter.  Something like a Reaper or Hellbore could have a close to, or exactly, 0% hit chance against fighters which could be helpful for the occassional "Talon soaks up your entire high-flux shot of doom" thing, while PD or anti-fighter specialized weapons like Thumpers and PD lasers could have 100% or close to 100% hit chance, like it is now.  In-between weapons like autocannons or IR pulse lasers could be in-between the two extremes.  Maybe this could be applied to frigates or phase ships or small destroyers, but on a much smaller scale.  It could give a pseudo-3D feel to this 2D space game if done right, of course doing it right would be the problem and it'd take some time to change the combat mechanics if at all possible in the first place.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on September 22, 2018, 05:34:45 PM
That sounds like a stupid amount of work and a massive mess to balance just to add something that majorly clashes with SS's combat arch-type. Nothing is really random in combat and stuff that is, isn't an "all or nothing" bet like this would be
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Retry on September 22, 2018, 06:02:46 PM
That sounds like a stupid amount of work and a massive mess to balance just to add something that majorly clashes with SS's combat arch-type. Nothing is really random in combat and stuff that is, isn't an "all or nothing" bet like this would be
It certainly would be a huge amount of work, not necessarily a huge mess to balance though as with its simplest you can make large weapons like aforementioned Reapers, Hellbores and such miss 100% of the time and the smaller/medium-sized weapons hit near 100% or exactly 100% of the time.

I was originally going to suggest an evasion stat that reduced damage by a % (similar to armor) for fighters instead of flat-out dodging but I nixed that since it'd likely make the whole Talons tanking Plasma/Reaper/Hellbore shots thing even more infuriating.

As far as nothing being truly random in combat that is flat-out wrong, but I'd rather not derail the discussion further.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Cik on September 22, 2018, 07:25:52 PM
That sounds like a stupid amount of work and a massive mess to balance just to add something that majorly clashes with SS's combat arch-type. Nothing is really random in combat and stuff that is, isn't an "all or nothing" bet like this would be

there are plenty of things that are random in combat unless you believe that this is a deterministic universe, in which case nothing is random.

probability of kill / malfunction etc. are all expressed as random chances in studies about combat my man.

but ultimately adding evasion to fighters might be helpful in balancing them and more feasible than simply making them touhou-capable platforms which would probably melt most CPUs in any large size fight (though i might be wrong about this)

it's probably more feasible than simply giving them more health, because giving them more health would result in a bunch of knock-on effects like needing to increase PD damage which might make PD then viable assault weapons which might skew game balance towards close assault etc. etc.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: TaLaR on September 22, 2018, 10:58:03 PM
but ultimately adding evasion to fighters might be helpful in balancing them and more feasible than simply making them touhou-capable platforms which would probably melt most CPUs in any large size fight (though i might be wrong about this)

Touhou fighters would be very cool though, even if likely unfeasible.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Megas on September 23, 2018, 06:49:54 AM
Evasion has been suggested before, and I still think it is a bad idea.  I probably would feel like punching the screen or smashing the keyboard if I see something like a perfectly aimed shot from a big gun pass through the fighter when such a clean hit displayed on the screen would obliterate it.
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Goumindong on September 23, 2018, 10:08:02 AM
Fighters already avoid your own missiles and weapon shots so it’s not a stretch to have them avoid enemy shots.

Though ideally if there was evasion it would be relatively consistent rather than random.  Maybe have them avoid all weapons not targeted at them. (If it was size dependent a lot of ships would lose the ability to defend from fighters entirely)
Title: Re: The Wasp sucks
Post by: Techhead on September 23, 2018, 10:36:10 AM
but ultimately adding evasion to fighters might be helpful in balancing them and more feasible than simply making them touhou-capable platforms which would probably melt most CPUs in any large size fight (though i might be wrong about this)

Touhou fighters would be very cool though, even if likely unfeasible.
This post inspired me to suggest that the other route to increasing a fighter's evasion would just be smaller hitboxes. Better than a random-chance "you actually missed" at least.