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

Author Topic: Yet another fighter balance post  (Read 6783 times)

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2020, 08:38:34 AM »

Fighter astrals seems like a waste of time, as do bomber drovers.

Drover has interesting synergy with Cobras. A bomber that fired it's load is considered 'dead' for reserve deployment purposes and half of 1 is still 1, so you can immediately launch 2 more Reapers.

Problem is, AI doesn't actually understand mechanics here, and just mashes system as soon as it's off cooldown, often getting wrong timing.
Logged

Hiruma Kai

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2020, 08:57:54 AM »

What are people's proposals to balance fighters or bombers on an Astral, Heron, or Drover, versus on ships like a Mora, Legion or Odyssey?  The former ships have bomber and fighter focused ship systems, while the others don't.  If bombers are balanced on a Legion, then the Astral is going to want to spam them compared to normal weapons, simply because the ship ability can effectively double the damage delivered.  What should the Astral sacrifice relative to the Legion for that effectively doubled bomber damage?  Is it the brawling capability? Or do we want to make fighters a sub-optimal choice if you don't have a related ship system, so that the decision to take a heavy blaster over a bomber on the Astral makes sense?

The fact that people don't tend to load Legions up with Tridents or Daggers (I'm assuming a lot with that statement) indicates we're kinda close to where you want to be in terms of a balance point.

The Astral, Drover, and Heron tend to put the most OP into fighters and/or bombers because they have ship abilities which magnify the benefits of fighters and bombers.  If a Hammerhead had universal mediums, you'd still put ballistics in those medium slots because the ship system does so much more with them.  Even with access to mod energy weapons or missiles. The ships you don't see sacrificing everything for more fighters are exactly the ones you wouldn't expect to.   The ones that don't have bonuses to fighters or limited slots relative to their class size.

Given not every player slaps converted hangars on every destroyer and above and drops a Trident in there, clearly at some point fighters/bombers do become too expensive relative to guns for a given ship hull.  The game design question is, what is that point?  And how does it slide with fleet size and fighter concentration.  A single flight of talons isn't that powerful in 1 on 1.  40 flights of talons becomes a large force multiplier in a fleet situation.  A single flight of Sparks in a 1 on 1 is a nice damage source. 40 flights of Sparks in an end game fleet vs fleet will wipe the opposition.

Do you balance for the beginning of the game or the end game?  Do you balance for the carrier specialists or the carrier generalists?  Do you introduce some new mechanics to prevent fighter concentration at end game?

Right now, I see the options and choice coming at the level do I pick an Astral, a Legion, or an Odyssey for my fleet.  The Astral is a specialized carrier, and is great at that job.  The Legion gets no bonuses to bombers, but has a maneuverability system which can strategically reposition itself to chase or get to support range of allies quickly when pulled in mid-battle as reinforcements.  An Odyssey has both strategic and tactical speed superiority, with better flux stats than either, but fewer fighters and shorter effective range on its big guns.  I see nothing wrong with ships that want to focus on fighters.  We have ships that want to focus on missiles, or large mount weapons, or speed.

Fighter balance overall probably needs some tweaking, but I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be tweaked to the level of making the Astral want to mount more flux dissipation/capacity and heavy blasters instead of daggers and tridents.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2020, 10:06:39 AM »

Why are we trying to make an Astral a warship? It, along with the Drover, is the most-dedicated pure carrier in the game. All of its weapon mounts are designed for self-defense, not offense. It has enough firepower to fend off Frigates and Destroyers but why is there an expectation for it to outgun a Cruiser without fighters? It even has a built-in Advanced Optics hullmod which tells the player "Hey, you'd do well to stack this thing with Beams." Beam PD, Tac Lasers, Gravitons, etc. It can defend itself (at range) but won't beat back a concentrated attack. That's the point.

Even pre-0.8, the Astral was never a good warship. It was a beam platform with missiles that you tried to keep behind your main lines. Even if you stripped all the OP intended for fighters, what could an Astral accomplish? It has subpar flux stats and is relatively fragile compared to the other Capitals. It also has very poor weapon arcs for frontline assault.

Why are we trying to make any of the pure carriers warships? That's an unreasonable expectation in the name of "build variety." Carrier play (for the player) could be improved with more direct control but the "carriers were better when you could load them with guns" argument is weird to me. Making a sub-optimal warship into a better sub-optimal warship seems...silly?
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2020, 10:44:04 AM »

You two are completely right but what I and a few others are trying to say is why are there even mounts if those carriers only use them for PD. It's just a chore filling those mounts since there's zero thought process.

Also LOL at saying Astral mounts are designed for self-defense. 2 large missile mounts on a dedicated carrier... I mean you're technically right, best self-defense is just to outright delete the enemy ships.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2020, 10:47:24 AM »

Why are we trying to make an Astral a warship?
Because before 0.8a, the carriers had no other choice, aside from not using them at all in favor of more warships or Atlas.  They have gun mounts, and mounts are meant to be used.  They could not spend OP on better fighters, so might as well spend them on guns so they can pop a smaller ship that feels lucky.  Like Gryphon, their stats are worse for their class, but by no means so bad that they were unusable.  I really, really miss this in modern releases.  At the same time, I will not use classic loadouts instead of more effective modern loadouts even if the latter look ridiculously stupid.  (Stupid loadouts are not just unarmed carriers, but also high-tech ships (like Aurora or Odyssey) with one or two blasters/plasma and every other energy mount empty because they need all other OP in either Sabots and Missile Racks or capacitors/vents/flux and shield hullmods to offset weapons' horrid inefficiency and range.)

Sure, Astral was worse brawling, but it could still fight and was no slouch, which was handy if an enemy Dominator or weaker got through to slug it out.  Sure, if a battleship reaches Astral, yeah sure, Astral dies.  But a cruiser or weaker? No problem.  Just blast them!

Astral has been in the game since at least 0.53.  Fighters were not bought with OP, just Fleet Points (0.5) Logistics (0.6) or fleet slots (0.7).  There were also no fighter hullmods like Expanded Deck Crew until 0.8a.  Also, there were fewer campaign mods, and Automated Repair Unit had a awful penalty during 0.6 (+50% Logistics).  Nearly all OP was spent on warship stuff because that was it.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2020, 10:53:50 AM by Megas »
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2020, 10:53:29 AM »

I'm down for carriers being the reverse of phase ships, counting as a gunboat of the next level down. So an astral is otherwise like a cruiser, and a drover as a frigate in terms of guns and stuff.

Which they kinda are at the moment, but they could stand to be a little bit better even still.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2020, 11:08:21 AM »

Balance fighters and carriers separately.

Look at which carriers are great for the price (Drover, Mora), look at which ones could use a little more love (Condor, Gemini?) or a few more OP (Heron).

Then nerf fighters. Various ways to do this. I still think a speed and respawn speed nerf would be in order for all fighters, as well as an adjustment pass for some OP costs.
Logged

Aereto

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2020, 11:14:02 AM »

Balance fighters and carriers separately.

Look at which carriers are great for the price (Drover, Mora), look at which ones could use a little more love (Condor, Gemini?) or a few more OP (Heron).

Then nerf fighters. Various ways to do this. I still think a speed and respawn speed nerf would be in order for all fighters, as well as an adjustment pass for some OP costs.
Speed nerf would defeat the purpose of interceptors and pursuit projection, especially interceptor wings with greater maximum distance from the carrier.
Logged

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2020, 06:43:07 AM »

Posting in a fighters thread
I want to reiterate what I think might help balance fighters out and generally improve their effect on gameplay.
1) Only bomber primary weapons do 100% damage against full-size ships. Other fighter classes do roughly 25%, more for gunships. EMP weapons only have 10% effectiveness vs full-size, unless it's a bomber's primary weapon.
In other words, full-size ships should be able to largely ignore all but the strongest fighters/gunships unless they're severely damaged or very close to overload - while bombers retain the same threat level.

2) Reduce fighters' health/armor to the point that most 5OP+ ballistic/energy weapons can two-shot most of them, with some generally more resilient. Give them a probability of dodging hits. This would largely be an aesthetic change, it makes little visual sense for tiny fighters to stand up to as much fire as they can. The practical volume of fire required to kill them would be roughly the same, but it gives them a bonus against heavy single-shot weapons that aren't intended for combating fighters; It also means that fighters would less often block a high-power shot meant for a full-size target which is often frustrating.

3) Weapons targeting fighters (and missiles) can fire over friendly ships - maybe only for PD weapons/small weapons with IPDAI or small weapons in general. Fighters are more likely to take fire from multiple sources, PD-heavy ships can do a better job of covering their wingmates.

4) Fighters must dock to replenish their wing. Instead of steadily trickling out and being a near-constant annoyance, fighters can be more easily suppressed by whittling their numbers - Attacking in waves rather than maintaining a relatively consistent presence.

5) Tie replacement rate to carrier's CR - Replacing fighters diminishes the carrier's CR. Not too sure on this one.

This is basically it. All of those are (except maybe number 5) are the solution.

I'd also add, give non-bombers the correct AI rather than making them act like wanna-be bombers. Interceptors should be intercepting other strikecraft and munitions (and obviously, would need to be made fast enough to do so - a fighter version of 0-flux speed boost for them would accomplish this), Fighters should be escorting bombers and go after other strikecraft.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2020, 06:47:06 AM »

This is basically it. All of those are (except maybe number 5) are the solution.

I'd also add, give non-bombers the correct AI rather than making them act like wanna-be bombers. Interceptors should be intercepting other strikecraft and munitions (and obviously, would need to be made fast enough to do so - a fighter version of 0-flux speed boost for them would accomplish this), Fighters should be escorting bombers and go after other strikecraft.
Why limit them to PD?  They are good for killing ships, especially the smaller ones (though I will take big ones too), and I use them mainly for that purpose to counter the cowardly, turtling AI which has become a real annoyance since 0.8a.

And long as AI plays like dirty cowards that want to stall until heat death of the universe (or CR time out), I want to send every last fighter to focus-fire and murder those stinking cowards!
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 06:50:43 AM by Megas »
Logged

Koyocire

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2020, 07:53:00 AM »

The fact that people don't tend to load Legions up with Tridents or Daggers (I'm assuming a lot with that statement) indicates we're kinda close to where you want to be in terms of a balance point.

You are assuming a lot seeing how my favorite Legion build involves 2 Daggers and 2 Longbows.
I only started the game recently so I don’t know what fighters were like prior to 0.9, but I will say I do like how the system currently works.  I do understand people’s complaints, fighters are powerful and most carriers are OP starved.  However, on the whole carriers and fighters seem balanced.  The best way I can see to give the crowd that wants more OP to kit out their carriers is reduce the OP cost of fighters and instead have fighters increase the recovery cost of its parent carrier.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2020, 09:02:40 AM »

The best way I can see to give the crowd that wants more OP to kit out their carriers is reduce the OP cost of fighters and instead have fighters increase the recovery cost of its parent carrier.
A suggestion I made earlier elsewhere was make fighters free (for ships with normal fighter bays, at least).  Anything less than 8 OP is considered underpowered trash for pirates (though Wasps have their uses) similar to pirate Wolves and phase ships, and the two Atropos user wings worth more than 15 OP can be scaled down (two Daggers instead of three, one Trident instead of two).
Logged

ANGRYABOUTELVES

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
  • AE ALTADOON GHARTOK PADHOME
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2020, 10:26:26 AM »

I think if you just remove EDC and nerf outliers like the Drover, Thunder, and potentially the Spark, fighters become mostly balanced. After that, the best way to nerf fighters is to improve the default variants, throw in some good IPDAI variants, and potentially add new dedicated anti-fighter weaponry. Right now there's a serious gap between anti-missile PD and anti-ship guns, where there's no extremely accurate low-recoil low-damage small HE gun for ripping apart unshielded fighters. I'm imaging something like the LAG but 500 range, perfectly accurate and dealing 20-ish HE per shot, 100 DPS 75 flux? Mix some IPDAI variants using that gun and some railguns or the new low-recoil single light autocannon into regular fleets and they'd create a death zone that fighters can't enter.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2020, 10:55:30 AM »

Fighters are primarily dangerous in large swarms, not few at a time. In which case hitting is mostly non-concern - just shoot in general direction of approaching fighter swarm. What you really need to counter them is high, flux-efficient dps. Passthrough weapons like Plasma or Hellbore are especially good.

Accurate weapons are only needed to mop up few remaining fighters, so are ultimately secondary.
Logged

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another fighter balance post
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2020, 10:57:38 AM »

Why limit them to PD?  They are good for killing ships, especially the smaller ones (though I will take big ones too), and I use them mainly for that purpose to counter the cowardly, turtling AI which has become a real annoyance since 0.8a.

Yes they are good at killing ships. But they shouldn't be. Interceptors and (and to a slightly lesser extent) Fighters shouldn't be ship killers - that's what bombers are for. Right now all strikecraft simply shoot ships and because of that, most of them are garbage. When only your ship-shooting ability matters, most of the strikecraft that have stats designed for not-ship shooting tend to be trash.

And yeah the reason weapons designed for anti-strikecraft are problematic right now is because strike craft work on the same hp and damage scales as regular ships, so any weapon that's amazing against fighters is also gonna be amazing against ships.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5