Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.9.1a is out! (05/10/19); Blog post: Painting the Stars (02/07/20); Updated the Forum Rules and Guidelines (02/29/20)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26

Author Topic: Fighter Redesign  (Read 101606 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 16164
    • View Profile
Fighter Redesign
« on: August 24, 2016, 04:01:02 PM »

Blog post here.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 04:03:35 PM by Alex »
Logged

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2016, 04:09:27 PM »

Awesome!
Logged
Stop trying to balance the game around a few minmaxers...
Programming is like sex:
One mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life.

Tired of having your game crash because of out of date mods? Then click here!
Spoiler
Get Version Checker today! Now with 90% less hassle! Simply toss it into your mod folder, activate the mod like a normal one and BINGO you will now be informed of any and all updates when you start SS campaign up!
[close]

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2432
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2016, 04:19:07 PM »

Interesting.  And also opens up some interesting possibilities - I could see, for example, replacing all of the current drone-based ship systems with the new fighter mechanics (and perhaps having certain ships with their selection of "fighters" as a built-in weapon that can't be changed).

I'm also tentatively hopeful that this makes the "fighters mean guaranteed crew losses" thing goes away - that was always my main reason for avoiding fighters, and the reason I loved the Wasp during the short time when they were zero-crew drones.

* * * * *

However, I don't like the way you've assigned OP costs to fighters: it makes sense for dedicated carriers, but locks out an interesting niche that used to be supported by the old hangar space stat; a Hammerhead with a wing of Talons was an interesting option back in the day.

I'd think it would work better to give fighter wings OP costs based on a comparison with standard weapons - and then give dedicated carriers a built-in hull mod that makes fighters cheaper to install (ala the current Optimized Assembly perk).  That way you could have some ships (like the Hammerhead) that might have the option to support a wing of fighters - but that wouldn't necessarily always want to fill their fighter bays, and other ships (like the Astral) where you'd want to fill in fighter bays before other weapons.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2016, 04:22:15 PM »

omgomgomgitshappening
Logged

Vind

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2016, 04:24:01 PM »

Awesome changes. Only concern about command points assuming strike craft commands use them.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 16164
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2016, 04:27:17 PM »

Interesting.  And also opens up some interesting possibilities - I could see, for example, replacing all of the current drone-based ship systems with the new fighter mechanics (and perhaps having certain ships with their selection of "fighters" as a built-in weapon that can't be changed).

Most of the ships with drone systems were actually carriers in the first place! And the Shepherd's Borer drones are fun, and I don't exactly want to nuke them... though, yeah, was thinking along the same lines. Was never quite happy with drones. Also wouldn't mind a replacement system for the Tempest.

The Venture, at this point, has two built-in mining pod wings.

I'm also tentatively hopeful that this makes the "fighters mean guaranteed crew losses" thing goes away - that was always my main reason for avoiding fighters, and the reason I loved the Wasp during the short time when they were zero-crew drones.

Crew losses are still there, but they're more manageable and on a non-linear scale. I.E. if you manage to lose 50 Talons in one fight, and 100 Talons in another, the latter won't mean double the crew losses but something considerably less.

Also, Wasps and Mining Pods are back to 0-crew.


However, I don't like the way you've assigned OP costs to fighters: it makes sense for dedicated carriers, but locks out an interesting niche that used to be supported by the old hangar space stat; a Hammerhead with a wing of Talons was an interesting option back in the day.

I'd think it would work better to give fighter wings OP costs based on a comparison with standard weapons - and then give dedicated carriers a built-in hull mod that makes fighters cheaper to install (ala the current Optimized Assembly perk).  That way you could have some ships (like the Hammerhead) that might have the option to support a wing of fighters - but that wouldn't necessarily always want to fill their fighter bays, and other ships (like the Astral) where you'd want to fill in fighter bays before other weapons.

Hah, funny. There's actually a "Converted Hangar" hullmod that adds a with-downsides fighter bay to ships destroyer-sized and larger. So, basically what you're saying but inverted so that the base case of "dedicated carrier" doesn't require a special hullmod.


Awesome!
omgomgomgitshappening

!!!!

Awesome changes. Only concern about command points assuming strike craft commands use them.

The fighter-specific tasks are gone entirely - which, I might add, cleans up the command UI quite nicely. They're entirely replaced by from-the-carrier commands. So, no more "strike", "rally strike group", "fighter rendezvous", or "rally carrier". Also removed "recon" while I was at it.
Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2016, 04:31:17 PM »

This will be a very interesting update!

Still thinking about removing crew?
Logged

MShadowy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 865
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2016, 04:32:57 PM »

The end of an era.  I suppose I'll miss those silly carrierless fighter wings that show up in small patrols, but this will be so much cleaner and fixes so many problems it's hard to argue with.

In any case, Definitely looking forward to seeing how this develops.
Logged

Tartiflette

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2850
  • Kickstarter is NOT a magic spring of free money!
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2016, 04:33:04 PM »

Looks pretty good, obviously I approve the changes. I'm kinda on the fence concerning the unlimited fighters: I wouldn't like to loose dozens crewmen while unable to retreat a carrier due to the limited amount of orders. That could go into a death spiral really fast. (Also is there a variant of that hullmod affecting all weapons that could be installed on decoy ships? ^^)
Logged
 

David

  • Global Moderator
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2016, 04:37:04 PM »

(Aw heck, the new chip graphic didn't make it in to the screenshots. Well, it looks cooler now!)
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2016, 04:38:00 PM »

I like the new strategic options for carriers, but at the same time fighters have been reduced to work like drones. No more long-range, scouting missions or point harrassment. No more teamwork between carriers. Bringing expensive fighters makes the carrier itself weak.

Well.. I've spoken out against the 'fighters as weapons' thing on several occasions, so my feelings about this are about as expected. Guess I'll reserve judgement until I can see how it plays. One thing I'd encourage for the new system is that the range limit on fighters be kept as high as possible. Then I'll at least be able to cope. ;)
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2432
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2016, 04:46:41 PM »

My suggestion for the Tempest: swap the terminator drone to a built-in "Terminator Drone LPC"... and don't give the ship a replacement system.  That's actually a thing I miss from earlier versions of Starsector: ships that just were what they were, no fancy bells or whistles.  I'd love, for example, a Hyperion (D) that gave up the teleporter in exchange for a lower deployment cost.

However, if no ship system isn't an option, then it should get something that's relatively weak - for example, giving it the Gryphon's Missile Autoforge would be a fairly safe choice, playing up the Tempest's place as an advanced strike vessel without significantly increasing its actual combat power.

For that matter, I could see the Terminator Drone (and the Borer Drone) as being valid fighter options for use on other vessels; certainly not the strongest available fighter type, but they could have their place.

The only drone that doesn't fit cleanly into the new paradigm would be the Apogee's sensor drones - an Astral with six of those would be more than a little bit absurd.  On the other hand, if the sensor boost was rolled into the Apogee's ship system, ion drones would certainly have some utility for other ships...
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7755
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2016, 05:08:05 PM »

Hah, funny. There's actually a "Converted Hangar" hullmod that adds a with-downsides fighter bay to ships destroyer-sized and larger. So, basically what you're saying but inverted so that the base case of "dedicated carrier" doesn't require a special hullmod.
Sounds like the iconic Onslaught can be converted into Battlestar Galactica or Ur-Quan Dreadnought.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 16164
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2016, 05:14:03 PM »

Still thinking about removing crew?

Crew levels? Oh yeah, those. They've been gone from the dev build for quite a while now, and I must say, it's been a breath of fresh air. And the amount of stuff it simplified under the hood is insane.

I suppose I'll miss those silly carrierless fighter wings that show up in small patrols,

Those were always a bit of a pain to fight, for me.

... but this will be so much cleaner and fixes so many problems it's hard to argue with.

Yeah, I'm excited about that. It simplifies a lot under the hood as well as (I feel) being more interesting overall.


Looks pretty good, obviously I approve the changes.

Shocker :)

Have to give credit where it's due, the mockup of the refit screen you put together really sold me on doing this "right" from the ground up.


I'm kinda on the fence concerning the unlimited fighters: I wouldn't like to loose dozens crewmen while unable to retreat a carrier due to the limited amount of orders. That could go into a death spiral really fast.

That shouldn't be a big deal, the way the crew loss calculation works is the losses approach about 2/3rds of the carriers minimum crew as the number of fighters lost approaches infinity. Obviously non-linear :)

(Also is there a variant of that hullmod affecting all weapons that could be installed on decoy ships? ^^)

I think I'm missing something; the Converted Hangar hullmod doesn't affect weapons?


(Aw heck, the new chip graphic didn't make it in to the screenshots. Well, it looks cooler now!)

Sorry :(

I like the new strategic options for carriers, but at the same time fighters have been reduced to work like drones. No more long-range, scouting missions or point harrassment. No more teamwork between carriers. Bringing expensive fighters makes the carrier itself weak.

Teamwork between carriers is still quite the option, but yeah, more or less.

Well.. I've spoken out against the 'fighters as weapons' thing on several occasions, so my feelings about this are about as expected. Guess I'll reserve judgement until I can see how it plays. One thing I'd encourage for the new system is that the range limit on fighters be kept as high as possible. Then I'll at least be able to cope. ;)

I hear you. Just one of those things where it's not going to make everyone happy, but I do feel strongly this is a good move overall. Personally, I'm pretty happy about personally piloting carriers looking like a viable option as a result of these changes. I do appreciate you reserving judgment, though :)

(The range is pretty high - right now, something like 4000 for most fighters, and 5000 for interceptors and such. Might possibly be extendable via skill or hullmod, but I'm not sure it's meaningful enough for such adjustment.)


Sounds like the iconic Onslaught can be converted into Battlestar Galactica or Ur-Quan Dreadnought.

Maybe an Ur-Quan Dreadnought, but definitely not the BSG. The hullmod grants just one fighter bay, but for larger ships the downside (replacement time) is smaller. Toyed around with a version of it that gave more bays, but ultimately don't want to turn the game into "fighters absolutely everywhere", so erring on the side of caution with this hullmod.
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 768
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2016, 05:14:48 PM »

For gods sake.. the next update has so many wonderful additions. No more I will worry about fighting against a large fleet of fighters, trying to find the evil carrier/s that keeps them all alive, along of course with not using the OP power of having a ton of fighters with a tiny little carrier.

I think I will enjoy for quite a while looking fighters deploy at the start of battles =)

One question though; I am not sure if it is mentioned and I did not see, but will adding fighters ships on carriers will accordingly affect the daily supply cost? How will having fighters affect the carrier's combat readiness? Will having 5 fighter wings lower CR much faster or maybe if you have fighters will higher ordnance point will spend more CR than the cheaper in OP ones?

(Uhhhh I am not sure if the above counts as one question)
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26