Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thaago]

Hmm, don't fighters have their own collision group? I'm not sure if we have the tools in the API, but that kind of thing should be very easy to do engine wise.

Now that I think of it, doesn't plasma have passthrough on missiles and fighters? We could make a PD weapon with the same projectile type?

[SCC]

It passes only through missiles. Fighters are properly hit.

[Snowblind]

I am reasonably sure plasma passes through fighters as well.

[Schwartz]

The thread could have been called: Balancing Sabot swarms without nerfing Sabots. Balancing capital spam without nerfing capitals. Balancing beam spam without nerfing beams. Balancing kinetic spam without nerfing kinetics.

Any kind of overwhelming force is going to wreck stuff. Fighter swarms may be worse because they're long range and ammo-less. Which is why I am all for nerfing fighters. But please, don't even think about patching this by changing how PD works, or by applying some arbitrary limit for fighter swarms vs. a given target. Before these options are even considered, I would prefer fighters not be touched at all.

[Igncom1]

Yeah if anything the presence of some fighter weapons to break armour, despite being PD craft, is the problem.

Sparks are armed with frigate scale point defence beams that are surprisingly effective vs armour. But that's only needed because missiles and fighters have frigate comparable levels of defence. In my opinion.

The same could be said for wasps or talons or broadswords. Point defence weapons are often just shorter ranged and more accurate frigate cannons.

[Plantissue]

To be honest, this so called fighter swarms are not much of a problem at all. It can only be done by the player deliberately creating such a fleet. Also the discussion confuses between fighter-type fighters and bomber-type fighters, of which Sabot armed Longbows are part of and Atropos armed Daggers are part of. It's not always clear which is which when people are discussing. It is also not clear if people are discussing Sparks in particular, or say the Talon/Broadsword example or even just Thunder.

As it is anyways, next release seems to hint at 6 fighter bays being an optimal number and perhaps frigates as well by giving a limited number of those a boost. I would imagine that there will be a reduction in fighter replacement rate as well, though that would be less of a nerf against the likes of bomber-type fighters.

[Morrokain]

Before these options are even considered, I would prefer fighters not be touched at all.

This is kind of where I am at right now, too. Just leave them alone rather than implementing anything arbitrary.

To be honest, this so called fighter swarms are not much of a problem at all. It can only be done by the player deliberately creating such a fleet. Also the discussion confuses between fighter-type fighters and bomber-type fighters, of which Sabot armed Longbows are part of and Atropos armed Daggers are part of. It's not always clear which is which when people are discussing. It is also not clear if people are discussing Sparks in particular, or say the Talon/Broadsword example or even just Thunder.

As it is anyways, next release seems to hint at 6 fighter bays being an optimal number and perhaps frigates as well by giving a limited number of those a boost. I would imagine that there will be a reduction in fighter replacement rate as well, though that would be less of a nerf against the likes of bomber-type fighters.

I just really hope this mechanic is through skills. Even if it is, I still don't like it honestly because it still violates the above concepts I've already mentioned, but it might be tolerable if its an optional skill that requires the player to pursue it for it to take effect.

[FooF]

I think the primary issue with fighter swarms is that PD is just not that effective against them. PD is geared toward missile defense rather than swatting fighters and it shows. If you're going to add an arbitrary mechanic to dissuade mass fighter attacks, increase the effectiveness of PD against fighter hulls and make them take losses. As has been said, granular control over individual fighters isn't possible but an attacking player could be warned that condensing a ball of fighters onto a single target makes them more vulnerable to anti-fighter weaponry.

I don't know what that looks like, per se, but the chief mechanic for fighting carriers is depleting its replacement rate. I feel it's better to lean into this mechanic than anything else.

[Megas]

To be honest, this so called fighter swarms are not much of a problem at all. It can only be done by the player deliberately creating such a fleet. Also the discussion confuses between fighter-type fighters and bomber-type fighters, of which Sabot armed Longbows are part of and Atropos armed Daggers are part of. It's not always clear which is which when people are discussing. It is also not clear if people are discussing Sparks in particular, or say the Talon/Broadsword example or even just Thunder.

As it is anyways, next release seems to hint at 6 fighter bays being an optimal number and perhaps frigates as well by giving a limited number of those a boost. I would imagine that there will be a reduction in fighter replacement rate as well, though that would be less of a nerf against the likes of bomber-type fighters.

I just really hope this mechanic is through skills. Even if it is, I still don't like it honestly because it still violates the above concepts I've already mentioned, but it might be tolerable if its an optional skill that requires the player to pursue it for it to take effect.

According to the blog, the bonuses from fleetwide skills like that decrease after the fleet exceeds some threshold, such as the six fighter bays.  It does not seem unskilled characters will take penalties for having too many carriers, just those that have skills to discourage "mono-fleets".

I don't know what that looks like, per se, but the chief mechanic for fighting carriers is depleting its replacement rate. I feel it's better to lean into this mechanic than anything else.

This is why Expanded Deck Crew hullmod feels mandatory for carriers.  Slower drain, faster recovery.  No way I have OP left to build a warship-lite carrier after I spend OP on good fighters and hullmods carrier needs to do its job well.

[Morrokain]

According to the blog, the bonuses from fleetwide skills like that decrease after the fleet exceeds some threshold, such as the six fighter bays.  It does not seem unskilled characters will take penalties for having too many carriers, just those that have skills to discourage "mono-fleets".

I'll have to reread it I don't remember all the details. I don't think I caught that the first time I read the blog. I guess I can take some consolation in the idea that skills will most likely be heavily moddable so I can likely increase the threshold number.

Back to possible solutions:

If going the nerf fighters route, based on my experience I would agree with Schwartz: changing PD requires a rebalance of missiles too. That might get pretty involved before all is said and done. Would reducing fighter defenses (and thereby increasing PD effectiveness that way) be out of the question? What do we think is the threshold of that kind of health/armor reduction before fighters themselves become unattractive?

Radical solution:

Turn fighters into mere recievers of the carrier's energy. Flux generation is proportional to a normal weapon rate and a distance-from-carrier based multiplier.

In concept, I like this idea because it's a "tried and true" balancing mechanism for any sort of weapon, including fighters. If this were the route taken, I would recommend flux be generated each fighter replacement that scales with replacement rate increasing that amount as more and more fighters die. Each fighter entry would have its own flux cost per replacement in the wings csv file. Max flux carriers stop replacing all together until they vent?

However, this might be a lot of work. I'm not sure. It also might run the risk of overly promoting weaponless carriers, which would feel a little off. And venting is fast enough that it might not even matter since fighters have such a large range... hmm second guessing it now. While good in principle it seems like there might be a lot of complications. Not saying it couldn't work though.

*EDIT*

I think the primary issue with fighter swarms is that PD is just not that effective against them. PD is geared toward missile defense rather than swatting fighters and it shows. If you're going to add an arbitrary mechanic to dissuade mass fighter attacks, increase the effectiveness of PD against fighter hulls and make them take losses. As has been said, granular control over individual fighters isn't possible but an attacking player could be warned that condensing a ball of fighters onto a single target makes them more vulnerable to anti-fighter weaponry.

I don't know what that looks like, per se, but the chief mechanic for fighting carriers is depleting its replacement rate. I feel it's better to lean into this mechanic than anything else.

I agree with the last part about replacement rate. Even if you could effectively warn the player, though, since they don't actually have that much control over what AI fighters do, I think that warning will in reality only translate to: "Don't give fighter strike orders or fighters will get worse and hope that the AI doesn't do it for you"

[Lucky33]

Radical solution:

Turn fighters into mere recievers of the carrier's energy. Flux generation is proportional to a normal weapon rate and a distance-from-carrier based multiplier.

In concept, I like this idea because it's a "tried and true" balancing mechanism for any sort of weapon, including fighters. If this were the route taken, I would recommend flux be generated each fighter replacement that scales with replacement rate increasing that amount as more and more fighters die. Each fighter entry would have its own flux cost per replacement in the wings csv file. Max flux carriers stop replacing all together until they vent?

However, this might be a lot of work. I'm not sure. It also might run the risk of overly promoting weaponless carriers, which would feel a little off. And venting is fast enough that it might not even matter since fighters have such a large range... hmm second guessing it now. While good in principle it seems like there might be a lot of complications. Not saying it couldn't work though.

Max flux will prevent both replacement and usage of weapons by fighters (not including zero flux weapons like missiles).

I'm already running weaponless carriers. For the most part I add weapons to them because I have OP to spare. But if not, weapons are first to go.

On the long range they will generate more flux too. In melee, LDMG generates 25 f/s for 208 dps. Make it 500 f/s for when fighters are at max range. My typical current Drover design will have to vent each 2 seconds or raise the number of caps/vents, take Power Grid Modulation for an officer and so on. Not so spamy now...

Idea in general is to force fighters act like bombers: "get in - unload - get out". No staying on top of the target till it shredded and consumed.

[Morrokain]

Idea in general is to force fighters act like bombers: "get in - unload - get out". No staying on top of the target till it shredded and consumed.

I will say I do like this a lot. It's a concept that seems to work. I'm thinking about how to get around some of the complications though. The weaponless carriers issue in particular is not ideal. Even if that is the current reality, a side goal would be to preserve the hybrid battlecarrier. I'm definitely open to suggestions there.

[Lucky33]

The most efficient way of using fighters will be at melee range. And its look like a good reason to keep regular guns on a carrier.

[Plantissue]

Before these options are even considered, I would prefer fighters not be touched at all.

This is kind of where I am at right now, too. Just leave them alone rather than implementing anything arbitrary.

To be honest, this so called fighter swarms are not much of a problem at all. It can only be done by the player deliberately creating such a fleet. Also the discussion confuses between fighter-type fighters and bomber-type fighters, of which Sabot armed Longbows are part of and Atropos armed Daggers are part of. It's not always clear which is which when people are discussing. It is also not clear if people are discussing Sparks in particular, or say the Talon/Broadsword example or even just Thunder.

As it is anyways, next release seems to hint at 6 fighter bays being an optimal number and perhaps frigates as well by giving a limited number of those a boost. I would imagine that there will be a reduction in fighter replacement rate as well, though that would be less of a nerf against the likes of bomber-type fighters.

I just really hope this mechanic is through skills. Even if it is, I still don't like it honestly because it still violates the above concepts I've already mentioned, but it might be tolerable if its an optional skill that requires the player to pursue it for it to take effect.

To be honest I don't like the idea that much either for the same reason. It was off an image of a blog post about skills and there is no guarantee that would be the case. The way it was phrased seem to imply that the bonus was distibuted by beingshared after 6 fighter bays, so perhaps it doesn't create the "optimal" number I was writing anyways.

[DatonKallandor]

The fighter bay bonus that was shown (and the other scaling bonuses mentioned) scales in a way where no matter how many you are "above the limit", you will always get a benefit from adding another of those items. Your fighters won't get worse if you add a 7th hangar - it'll still be an increase over 6. It's just a skill that you take if you want your strikecraft to be better, it doesn't matter how many hangars you have.

As for fighter balance, having fighters act more like fighters (air superiority, anti-strikecraft) would help a lot. Nerf their weapons against non-strikecraft targets, buff up their agility and speed, change their AI to priotize strikecraft/dump flares for bombers. That alone would help differentiate them from bombers and stop clouds of them from quite so overwhelming to proper ship targets.