Print

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

[The_Fallen]

I strongly believe, that the balance atm is not perfect. However as it is an alpha, thats not a big problem. But the fleetpoint system seems kinda flawed.
Here is the reason why: In my opinion a fighter and bomber mix equal in cost of a capital ship should have a 50% of winning against a capital ship. I'm not sure if this is possible with the creditcosts at the moment, but if you look at the fleetpoint, you'll see the problem: A capital with 20 fleetpoints wins without getting max flux vs 3 heavy fighters, which use already 21 fleetpoints and you haven't even taken some bombers into your fleet.

This is the reason why the Ai will at the moment never pose a threat if you get a capital. You can simply kill the enemy 4 or 5 ships without risk.

[Gabrybbo]

Welcome to the forum! 

You're right, with 3 heavy fighters you can't take down an Onslaught, but you can catch 3 points and deploy the rest of your fleet while the enemy slowly moves his battleship towards you.

Fleet cost alone is not indicative of firepower capabilities: heavy fighters are good as point cappers, can hunt down frigates and provide a priceless help in taking down interceptors and destroyers. But alone against a large opponent they are dead, it's their main weakness.  

Also, remember that there are several "categories" of fighter crafts:
- interceptors: they move quickly through the battlefield to catch small ships and bombers before they can do damage.
- heavy fighters: they can devastate interceptors with superior armament and endurance and can damage frigates severely, but they're slower and their armament is not designed to harm anything more than a destroyer.
- assault fighters: these guys bear a lot of guns and armor to devastate enemy ships, but are vulnerable to faster and smaller crafts.
- support fighters: they support (duh) ships and bombers with armament designed to destroy missiles and help bring down enemy shields.
- bombers: they drop bombs (double-duh) and torpedoes on enemy destroyers and above. Devastating, but usually with very little armament for self defense and slow speed.

If fighters were cheaper (FP wise) they'd be too powerful, right now they have their role in the battlefield, just not the protagonist role.  

[Wyvern]

There's one more thing to consider, The_Fallen - namely that, right now, there aren't any player skills that boost fighters.  Considering that skills can take a destroyer (say, a Sunder), and make it go from "vaguely decent" to "nigh unstoppable", I imagine fighters will be similarly more effective once you have the choice to actually specialize in using them.

[The_Fallen]

Good Point Gabrybbo! You have given me an excellent idea:
What about changing the amount of the initial fleetpoints (=fp) available at the start of a battle? If you have only 20 fp at the beginning and you can cap additionally 80 fp, then it makes a huge difference if you go for fighters first or your capital. But now I can bring in 2 capitals, 3 fighters and 2 bombers right away, then cap two of the four points and bring in the rest of my fleet.

[Gabrybbo]

It's a good idea, but this may likely be something that will get balanced as the campaign stuff gets developed: right now having a capital ship is something very common, but in the final campaign a cruiser will already be a sight to fear, as we will have less ships overall and the risk of losing a ship will not be as insignificant as it is now. 

Still, it would be nice to have a tighter limit on what we can deploy at the start. I usually get at least 40 FP, which means a cruiser (14 for a Eagle), 3 frigates (15 for 3x Lasher) and 3 interceptor wings (9 for 3x Talon), which is enough to win a small-medium battle without any loss. 

[jimy]

I agree with the OP but for an other reason.
Right now the best unit combination is capital ship + capital ship + capital ship etc.

And that's what I don't like. The different ships like frigates and destroyers only barely fullfill a special role in the fleet but are just size classes.
To balance this the fleet points should be reduced because they aren't worth the points they cost.

If there is a fight with equal fleet points but one fleet has 1 cap and a few destroyers and fighters but the other one has 2-3 cap ships, the speed bonus of the destroyers/fighters wouldn't change a lot since the second fleet would just steam roll the enemy.
Btw I'm talking right now about the low tech - midline tech ships. The high tech ones are probably specialized enough to make a difference.

[Gothars]

Right now the best unit combination is capital ship + capital ship + capital ship etc.

And that's what I don't like. The different ships like frigates and destroyers only barely fullfill a special role in the fleet but are just size classes.

I's not quite as bad since you can't deploy an all caps fleet, but I see your point. From what I understand caps will become much rarer in the final game as they are now, but at on point you will own one (several?) anyway, so that's no solution to the issue.

You are right that smaller ships don't have enough of a role to really make them worthwile in the presence of caps (especially once you got past deployment). But instead of just lowering FP, would it not be better to flesh out the role?

There are several things that could benefit smaller ships
- environmental hazards that have to be avoided (minefields, "gravimetric fluctuations", more types of nebulae)
- incoming hazards that have to be evaded (huge incoming asteroids, ballistic missiles from a nearby planetary defense system)
- moving objectives that have to be caught up to (orbiting satellites? ancient drones that function like comm relays and try to evade anyone approaching?)
- an overall bigger battlefield size that makes mobility more important
- much higher maintenance costs per FP for capships than for smaller ones

[jimy]

Right now the best unit combination is capital ship + capital ship + capital ship etc.

And that's what I don't like. The different ships like frigates and destroyers only barely fullfill a special role in the fleet but are just size classes.

I's not quite as bad since you can't deploy an all caps fleet, but I see your point. From what I understand caps will become much rarer in the final game as they are now, but at on point you will own one (several?) anyway, so that's no solution to the issue.

You are right that smaller ships don't have enough of a role to really make them worthwile in the presence of caps (especially once you got past deployment). But instead of just lowering FP, would it not be better to flesh out the role?

There are several things that could benefit smaller ships
- environmental hazards that have to be avoided (minefields, "gravimetric fluctuations", more types of nebulae)
- incoming hazards that have to be evaded (huge incoming asteroids, ballistic missiles from a nearby planetary defense system)
- moving objectives that have to be caught up to (orbiting satellites? ancient drones that function like comm relays and try to evade anyone approaching?)
- an overall bigger battlefield size that makes mobility more important
- much higher maintenance costs per FP for capships than for smaller ones

That are some good ideas.
I hope Alex will look at this and maybe add it.

Oh and btw maybe it's a little bit Off-Topic but for those natural hazards to be more dangerous the impact damage should be increased. It always bothers me how a collision with an asteroid deals barely no damage. If you ram them with highspeed they should have the power of a hellborn projectile.