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: Skills and Story Points (07/08/19)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 26

Author Topic: Fighter Redesign  (Read 95306 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 15217
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2016, 09:50:03 PM »

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.

Oh, hey, forgot to respond here as well! Hmm. Well, my one weakness is ships with ill-advised modifications, so... maybe?


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

Well, ordnance points more or less represent that. We don't really want to start counting ammo for shots fired and consuming resources for all that, do we? Fighters, with this overhaul, fall into the same category as weapons as far as maintenance goes.

...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.

Hah, nice :)

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?

They did get a bit of a boost, actually. I think the rough formula is "20 OP per fighter bay should add up to about 2/3rds of the carrier's OP", at least that's what they're balanced to right now.

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.

It's certainly effective, but it's not very fun to use and it's always felt awkward to me in terms of how other AI deals with it.

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?
@ Dri, appers to be Hammers.

Yep, Hammers. Reapers were way too good, everything just disappeared.


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.

It's not quite unique to it, at least one other fighter (the Warthog) has it. I do see what you're saying, though... but on the other hand, it kind of makes sense for it to be confined to certain fighters, as it wouldn't be very useful for ships.

It's explicitly mentioned in the fighter wing tooltip in the refit screen, and explained in fighter descriptions, so no need to dig quite so deep as the Codex. I could definitely see a system working out nicely here, though, with a strong visual indicator - something like an orange glow centered on the fighter, perhaps, that turns on when it's under fire. But it's one of those things that might not actually look good in practice - the whole scene is already pretty chaotic, and adding more visuals to it might not be clarifying. Or it might be. Will see if I get a chance to try it out; what's there now works and so I'm not super inclined to mess with it.
Logged

MesoTroniK

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1370
  • I am going to destroy your ships
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2016, 09:58:25 PM »

I also think it would be interesting if the ECCM hullmod acted as a debuff to the PD Jammer, after all it would make a hullmod that is not extremely useful in many cases just a bit more so. It also would make sense, after all, ECCM in reality is to combat jamming and why not make it so here as well and not just for missiles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_counter-countermeasure
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #47 on: August 24, 2016, 10:00:52 PM »

The Dagger's Reapers being downgraded to Hammers is a massive nerf but I suppose the new near-instant rearm time will help to lessen the blow...

What does the Trident have? Still the twin Atropos?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 15217
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2016, 10:05:03 PM »

I also think it would be interesting if the ECCM hullmod acted as a debuff to the PD Jammer, after all it would make a hullmod that is not extremely useful in many cases just a bit more so. It also would make sense, after all, ECCM in reality is to combat jamming and why not make it so here as well and not just for missiles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_counter-countermeasure

Hey, that's a really cool idea! Plus it's one more place to let the player know the PD jamming is a thing. Made a note.


The Dagger's Reapers being downgraded to Hammers is a massive nerf but I suppose the new near-instant rearm time will help to lessen the blow...

Oh, it's absolutely a massive nerf. Since the Astral was blowing multiple Onslaughts to bits (literally, with the new ship breaking :)) with a casual ease, that's exactly what was called for :)


What does the Trident have? Still the twin Atropos?

Yep, and that's it - no PD lasers or anything. Still has a good shield, though. It might actually be a bit too good, even though it's a whopping 30 OP to install.
Logged

Foxer360

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
  • Recursion; See Recursion (n)
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2016, 10:08:17 PM »

Daaaamn Alex, back at it again with the carrier mechanics!

Shameless stale memes aside, this'll be interesting to play with once it releases! Can't wait to show all the other spacers my TridentX 970 Superclocked chipset getting 6 gigatorpedoz per volley.
Logged

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2639
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #50 on: August 24, 2016, 10:21:00 PM »

20 and 30 OP for a single wing of bombers is insane! That's over three full (and one partial) rearms just to MATCH TWO typhoons! And THREE for the tridents! And now that the daggers are using reapers and not hammers!
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]

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1800
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #51 on: August 24, 2016, 11:38:08 PM »

Won't PD Jammer, when used against player, just force player to fire PD manually?
For optimal use, it will take some tedious setup (several, per ship facing) alternating PD groups + a lot of pausing during combat to effectively switch where needed. But by doing so, player can override PD Jammer, if he really wants. Kind of forced to, for efficient play.
Or in simpler cases just manually volley fire your PD group on incoming missile swarm. Still better than having your PD fire on Jammers in completely different direction.

Possible solution: lock PD capable weapons to auto-fire, even if they are in currently selected weapon group.

...Weird and possibly too complex to actually make sense during play idea:
I don't really like how PD Jammer compromises PD AI of target ship. But it could be presented in more immersive way: what if PD targets (fighters and missiles) within jammed area were indistinguishable for other fleet. Basically just enemy blobs (their positions can be also displayed with fluctuating random offset too). In this case PD picking targets at random or outright missing would make sense without compromising PD AI.
Logged

Grievous69

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2016, 12:02:25 AM »

I'm amazed how we still didn't get any patch notes yet so much changes (some pretty damn significant and big) were done since the last build. Guess they'll come Soon™-ish. Really hyped about these fighter changes, can't wait to get a truckload of carriers in campaign :D. I'm also a bit concerned about OPs but we'll see how it'll all turn out in the end, can't say much right now.
Logged

Jonlissla

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2016, 12:27:33 AM »

Each time you make a new blog post it's like a early christmas.

I'm hyped as hell for the update.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2016, 12:55:01 AM »

re: expensive bomber wings
the costs seem justified to me. yeah, ~20 OP for a Dagger wing that has a total of three Hammers seems ridiculous. but those Hammers have 1) potentially unlimited ammunition and 2) around 5k range. add to that fighter synergies that have the potential to allow for more reliable hits, and i'd say it sounds very reasonable.

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.
ah, thanks. not sure if i'll ever see it then, i generally get bored of one playthrough before i completely finishing it (usually when i feel my fleet is almost perfect already).

Each time you make a new blog post it's like a early christmas.
IKR?! ^_^
Logged

Phearlock

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2016, 01:01:23 AM »

Update is looking really cool. I'm a bit sad about losing fighters as tactical-point-capturers, but this is fine, can compensate with more frigates.

Think the bit I'm most excited about is the added control of a personal wing of fighters/bombers to battlecruiser class vessels and similar. Those (Odyssey, Diable avionics Maelstrom, etc) were already some of my favorite ships to fly.

Will officer personalities differ significantly in their fighter micromanagement use as well?
Logged

Originem

  • Purple Principle
  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
  • Dancing like a boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2016, 01:07:41 AM »

So, if fighters can be "equipped", is there any possiblity that other commodity can be installed?

I am really interested about that.
Logged
My mods


Tartiflette

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2754
  • Kickstarter is NOT a magic spring of free money!
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2016, 01:48:26 AM »

Okay, time to get some modding details, to plan what the heck Scy and Diable will do with their fighters.

 - So there is this "replacement rate" attribute to carriers. Is it purely set by the number of flight deck and consumed along the fighters OP costs? Or are they stats that can be manually set on a per hull basis? In the former case I suppose there are mutable stats since you have a less efficient "hullmod" flight deck.

I'm thinking about Diable wanzer wings that right now are a bit stronger than vanilla fighters at the cost of very limited replacement chassis. I don't think they need a higher OP cost if we can make them pressure the replacement rate more than usual.
I also have the Scyan Keto that is a carrier with several extra flight decks on a breakable part. The obvious move would be to dramatically cut the replacement rate if that part get destroyed.

 - Are fighters burn rate gone? Since they are now attached to a carrier I would guess it is the case, or did they kept it to be able to force an engagement upon a faster fleet? If not, I hope they can't they slow down a fleet?

 - Since flight decks are now "weapons", can they be disabled by EMP or damage? That could allow some interesting counter-play strategies and avoid the daggers launch, daggers fire, daggers dock cycle when the carrier is directly under attack.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 01:50:29 AM by Tartiflette »
Logged
 

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2016, 02:15:36 AM »

I understand the reasoning behind Daggers getting Hammers instead of Reapers but... urgh. A high-tech bomber with shields (assuming it still has them, but either way it still looks high-tech) shouldn't be carrying a hobo-torpedo. Unless there's a massive Reaper shortage in the Sector you would expect a military bomber to carry military ordnance, not home-brewed asteroid poppers.

Can't we have a different, low-tech bomber for Hammers and give the Dagger something else? I dunno, maybe an energy/ion/something high techy-based torpedo?

But still, it's weird the most iconic torpedo (Reaper) isn't represented on any bomber. Might even be worth giving Tridents Reapers and Daggers Atropos, although I realise the current art wouldn't work well.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2016, 02:27:26 AM »

oh my.. i just noticed the Pirate-Afflictor! that's scary. D:

Can't we have a different, low-tech bomber for Hammers and give the Dagger something else? I dunno, maybe an energy/ion/something high techy-based torpedo?
i agree that would fit a lot better, and having one or two vanilla torpedo options that aren't HE would be nice as well, in general.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 02:33:02 AM by Sy »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 26