Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25

Author Topic: Fighter Redesign  (Read 148483 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2016, 06:36:09 PM »

Okay.  I probably would have defaulted to Thunders, Xyphos, or some heavy fighter if I converted my battleship into a mini-carrier.  I am not fond of bombers unless I build my fleet around fighters.  Back in the 0.6x days, I tried an Odyssey and Xyphos fleet, with Xyphos to distract enemies while Odyssey blasted everything with plasma cannons.

The Xyphos is actually super different now. A heavy support fighter with an Ion Beam that never goes on attack runs but always hangs around either the carrier or the friendly ship the carrier is targeting.


I am really not a fan of the Point-Defense Jammer concept... At all.

It is such a binary mechanic, that also is extremely exploitable.

Aw, man :( I'm actually really happy with it, it was a watershed moment in terms of making everything work mechanically.

Not sure what you mean by "binary" here; it's not as though jammer/no jammer means everything vs nothing gets through. It's a big contribution, but, for example, it could be better to not go for Broadswords and go for more bombers instead if you're planning to focus on flanking. And even with jammers, a portion of torpedoes and such do get targeted and shot down.

As for being exploitable... to a degree that's the point, but also, just how exploitable *is* it? The Broadswords are getting shot at that point, and the window of opportunity afforded by them is short indeed. I mean, I'm not sure I see this as "exploitable", more "useful in its intended role". Exploitable would more mean that it's game-breaking in some way, and I'm not seeing how that is. Entirely possible I'm missing something, though.


the only thing i don't like (from just reading about it) is that having only a single wing deployable per flight deck seems rather lackluster for smaller carriers, especially if "fighter teamwork" will become an important part of carrier power. six wings for Astral sounds plenty, but just a single wing for Condor and Gemini, and two for Heron.. not so much. that said, i will certainly be glad if i don't have to fight bounty fleets with 20 fighter wings + carriers and not much else anymore. ^^

The Heron has 3 bays, and the Condor has 2. The Gemini has 1, but it's basically not a "proper" carrier now - more of a heavily defended freighter.

Quote
Also removed "recon" while I was at it.
why this one? even with it just using frigates, i think it'd still be useful.

Mostly because I don't think it's seeing much use, and de-cluttering.


Will refitting returning ships count towards deployment cost? I am guessing no, so it will be more crucial now for the player to not let bombers return alive, but still I wanted to ask.

Again, no interaction there - what fighters do or what happens to fighters in combat has no effect on the deployment cost of the carrier. Unless you count the crew lost. Which you probably should, unless you're some kind of monster. Ahem.
Logged

MesoTroniK

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • I am going to destroy your ships
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2016, 06:42:23 PM »

Aw, man Sad I'm actually really happy with it, it was a watershed moment in terms of making everything work mechanically.

Not sure what you mean by "binary" here; it's not as though jammer/no jammer means everything vs nothing gets through. It's a big contribution, but, for example, it could be better to not go for Broadswords and go for more bombers instead if you're planning to focus on flanking. And even with jammers, a portion of torpedoes and such do get targeted and shot down.

As for being exploitable... to a degree that's the point, but also, just how exploitable *is* it? The Broadswords are getting shot at that point, and the window of opportunity afforded by them is short indeed. I mean, I'm not sure I see this as "exploitable", more "useful in its intended role". Exploitable would more mean that it's game-breaking in some way, and I'm not seeing how that is. Entirely possible I'm missing something, though.


Spam Broadswords, then manually fire volleys of finisher missiles or torpedos... Watch as anything gets vaporized with no real counter play.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 06:43:57 PM by MesoTroniK »
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 774
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2016, 07:00:24 PM »

Again, no interaction there - what fighters do or what happens to fighters in combat has no effect on the deployment cost of the carrier. Unless you count the crew lost. Which you probably should, unless you're some kind of monster. Ahem.

Actually the reason I get only shielded fighters, is because I hate to see crew dying like flies >.> I really think the prices of crew members should go more high, the more losses you have in battle, and compared to how large your fleet it. Except if people just love dying I guess in this universe XD

PS: "Orhpans made" stat of Nexerelin a really hard slap or realism >.>
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2016, 07:37:53 PM »

Spam Broadswords, then manually fire volleys of finisher missiles or torpedos... Watch as anything gets vaporized with no real counter play.

Shields, interceptors, actual non-PD guns that shoot down the Broadswords. If you're in the carrier in question: which carrier is going to 1) carry that much missile firepower and 2) be able to get in position to use it? The only one that comes to mind at all is the Astral, but it'll have problems getting in position, and 4 Reapers (from Cyclones) is... well, it's pretty good. But most of that is still going to hit shields, some of it may still get shot down, etc. Getting 1-2 Reapers through seems hardly worth giving up the torpedoes bombers would fire.

If it's another ship, like the Gryphon - it'd need to coordinate with a nearby carrier, so right off the bat that's less reliable, but also, I think, pretty cool if you get it to work. And, multiple ships cooperating like this is a good thing, isn't it?

Something like the Mora, if you put 3 Broadswords and 2 Tyhpoons on it, that's really dedicating to the strategy. And... well, let me actually try this out vs a Dominator and see how it goes, since that is rather interesting.

<some time later>

It works well, but it doesn't actually require Broadswords. Other fighters also work with varying degrees of success - it's really just a matter of timing the torpedo launch so they come in right after the fighters absorb the first flak shots. Not very hard. The Broadswords do well here because they do some kinetic damage to shields, helping build up flux. In fact, removing the pd jammer hullmod for a test fight didn't make much difference at all. The jammer really comes in handy with torpedo bombers, where the timing of the launch isn't under your control, so more leeway is needed.

In the end, it seems like you'd be giving up a fair amount to make this work, and the window of opportunity would be just that - a window. So this seems more like a neat new tactic that's an option (going with the whole "fighters are bad on their own, but combine with other things well" concept), rather than something overpowered that will dominate. And it doesn't seem dependent on the PD jammer all that much, anyway, but more on timing. The jammer certainly helps though, makes the timing more forgiving.

Side note: the Broadswords are pretty nerfed compared to how their are now. They *only* have the LMGs, and enough flux for 3 volleys before their firepower drops to a third of maximum.

Edit: tried the Mora vs an Aurora; less success here because the shields are too strong. Definitely not a one-size-fits all solution. I should add, I think what you're bringing up is a good thing to look at and a potential issue - but due to the specific numbers and nitty-gritty details, my feeling is it shapes up more into "feature" than "problem".

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.

Realized I never responded here. A (D) ship like that might work, but for a non-(D) ship, I think that might feel "unfinished" to the player.

Hmm. High energy focus might be nice on the Tempest, actually.


PS: "Orhpans made" stat of Nexerelin a really hard slap or realism >.>

Yeah, not a fan of those kinds of stats for that reason. Have fun roleplaying a mass murderer! It's like /played in MMOs, just makes you feel bad.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 08:23:26 PM by Alex »
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2016, 08:02:28 PM »

What a cool new way to handle this. It borrows a lot from forum suggestions but puts an Alex spin on it.

You talk about refit times and the sort of degraded flight deck hullmod that doesn't give a bonus to rearming fighters but I'm curious if the fighter types themselves have varying replacement times. I.e. a Talon is repaired/replaced 4-5x faster than a Dagger. Are those numbers available to the player or under the hood, so to speak?

Also, does the replacement rate for the carrier have a correlation with number of flight decks? I'd imagine the larger the carrier, the harder it is to tank the replacement rate via attrition but does a 3 flight deck Heron have 50% more replacement rate strength than a 2 flight deck Condor? Is it a flat amount or scaled somehow?

Overall, I'm excited by this change and it appears the next patch is shaping up to be another major release. Can't wait.
Logged

Techhead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2016, 08:05:49 PM »

I like the fighter redesign. A lot.

Though I too will miss the lone fighter wings accompanying carrierless fleets. Maybe there could be some cruddy frigate that's basically a hanger on engines? Maybe make it a Shepard MK.II? Strip the drones (and maybe a weapon slot) and add Ill-Advised Modifications and Converted Hanger.
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 774
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2016, 08:24:50 PM »

So, if the carrier gets destroyed, what happens with the fighters? I am guessing they either stay around and fight till their inevitable death, or flee since they see they have no carrier to supposedly return to?

 I am wondering cause since now fighters will be considered part of a carrier, a weird thought of them self destructing when the carrier gets destroyed passed my mind.  ::)

I definitely would prefer them to flee.  ;D
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2016, 08:28:21 PM »

What a cool new way to handle this. It borrows a lot from forum suggestions but puts an Alex spin on it.

:D

You talk about refit times and the sort of degraded flight deck hullmod that doesn't give a bonus to rearming fighters but I'm curious if the fighter types themselves have varying replacement times. I.e. a Talon is repaired/replaced 4-5x faster than a Dagger. Are those numbers available to the player or under the hood, so to speak?

Yeah, they have different replacement times, and you can see those on the tooltip you see hovering over the LPC cargo item, a fitted launch bay, or possible LPCs in the fighter selection dialog when fitting. Typically 5/10/15 seconds for interceptor/fighter/bomber, but there are a couple of exceptions.

Also, does the replacement rate for the carrier have a correlation with number of flight decks? I'd imagine the larger the carrier, the harder it is to tank the replacement rate via attrition but does a 3 flight deck Heron have 50% more replacement rate strength than a 2 flight deck Condor? Is it a flat amount or scaled somehow?

Sort of - the replacement rate is actually an aggregate of similar values for each individual bay. For example, if 3 of the 6 bays on the Astral are idle, the replacement rate will not go down even if the other bays are working full-time. If 4 out of 6 are working, it'll go down but relatively slowly.


So, if the carrier gets destroyed, what happens with the fighters? I am guessing they either stay around and fight till their inevitable death, or flee since they see they have no carrier to supposedly return to?

Both! They fight on for a bit (with a random factor), and then flee.
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 774
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2016, 08:32:38 PM »

Both! They fight on for a bit (with a random factor), and then flee.

Perfect =)
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

SweetMango

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2016, 08:36:00 PM »

Wow! This is what I want! :) I'm looking forward to next update.

How about consuming some resources (metals/supplies/heavy equipments, etc...) or supply cost per fighter replacement/model instead of ordinance point?

I think embarked fighter models affects carrier operation cost or the number of fighters, but carrier's armaments.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2016, 09:03:22 PM »

The Heron has 3 bays, and the Condor has 2. The Gemini has 1, but it's basically not a "proper" carrier now - more of a heavily defended freighter.
ah, that sounds much better. and i do like Gemini still having only one, i was always a bit sad that Condor was just outclassed by it in almost every way.

Quote
Mostly because I don't think it's seeing much use, and de-cluttering.
aww, okay.

...actually, i just realized that i only ever use it to scout for enemy carriers hiding at the edges of the map. fighters not being able to carry out the order wouldn't have stopped me from using "recon", but carriers having to stay closer to the battle, due to fighter range limitations, might.


PS: "Orhpans made" stat of Nexerelin a really hard slap or realism >.>
there's an "orphans made" stat in nexerelin? o_o

i was about to ask "where do i see that?", but maybe it's better if i don't know. i'm the kind of player who builds up his army in Mount & Blade by just fighting bandits, and i still feel kinda bad for killing them... maybe they've just been forced into this outlaw life because they couldn't feed their family with honest work anymore! D:


Maybe there could be some cruddy frigate that's basically a hanger on engines? Maybe make it a Shepard MK.II? Strip the drones (and maybe a weapon slot) and add Ill-Advised Modifications and Converted Hanger.
i'd like that. iirc, Shepard was originally intended to be an actual carrier, but it would have been too powerful due to even a single flight deck (compared to zero flight decks) making such a huge difference for being able to use fighters effectively.

i like the current Shepard, but with these fighter changes, i think a dedicated single-flight-deck frigate would work just fine. i don't think it would even need negative hullmods, if it doesn't have anything going for it besides the fighter wing. could also make it high-tech with good mobility, but relatively expensive, since currently we only have one high-tech carrier, in capital size.
Logged

Weltall

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 774
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2016, 09:07:00 PM »

PS: "Orhpans made" stat of Nexerelin a really hard slap or realism >.>
there's an "orphans made" stat in nexerelin? o_o

i was about to ask "where do i see that?", but maybe it's better if i don't know. i'm the kind of player who builds up his army in Mount & Blade by just fighting bandits, and i still feel kinda bad for killing them... maybe they've just been forced into this outlaw life because they couldn't feed their family with honest work anymore! D:

When you finish the Nexerelin campaign, be it by eradicating every other faction, or just the factions that are not in your alliance (factions geti n your alliance if they are friendly or higher with you), you get an ending screen. There you see the stats of how good you fared. Starfared I might say.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 09:13:05 PM by Weltall »
Logged
Ignorance is bliss..

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2016, 09:26:09 PM »

The blog post was very informative and answered a lot of questions so I haven't much to say. I'm pretty solidly onboard with these changes and I'm glad you're keeping up the info flow with a new post each month!

Carriers aren't receiving any sort of OP boost then, right? With a full compliment of stronger fighter wings and every weapon slot filled, the Mora would have pretty much zero left over OP for hullmods/vents/caps, aye?

Don't remove the Terminator Drone from the Tempest and especially don't replace it with the HEF - too many ships have that hullmod already! The drone is super unique and does a great job taking some heat off the Tempest.

EDIT: Oh, one other thing, in one of the screenshots it appears that Daggers no longer fire Reapers - is this true? What do they fire now?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 09:32:13 PM by Dri »
Logged

MesoTroniK

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • I am going to destroy your ships
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2016, 09:36:06 PM »

It seems the hullmod is less potent than I thought, thank you for the explanation Alex... But I still personally do not like the idea on the conceptual level, how this fighter will distract PD in a manner that is unique to it and is not player facing at all without reading the codex. In my opinion it would make much more sense as a ship system with a visualization.

@ Dri, appers to be Hammers.

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2016, 09:48:07 PM »

It seems the hullmod is less potent than I thought, thank you for the explanation Alex... But I still personally do not like the idea on the conceptual level, how this fighter will distract PD in a manner that is unique to it and is not player facing at all without reading the codex. In my opinion it would make much more sense as a ship system with a visualization.

@ Dri, appers to be Hammers.
I hope that is a FIGHTER ship system that you are talking about Meso. Otherwise I agree that it would be a pain to find out about the hullmod

At the daggers losing the Reapers: Wow, 20 OP for hammers REALLY doesn't seem worth it... Reapers maybe but not hammers... Especially since I can't control when they launch or take advantage of small precise openings in defenses
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 09:50:12 PM by Midnight Kitsune »
Logged
Help out MesoTroniK, a modder in need

2021 is 2020 won
2022 is 2020 too
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25