Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Helldiver on June 22, 2021, 09:41:15 PM
-
Currently, the player and AI have little control over fighters beyond targeting one ally or enemy and having all fighters attack or regroup. It's always been a big problem in my opinion, one that kills the fun of carrier gameplay for both ends of the gameplay equation.
There are multiple issues with this:
-Little interactivity and room for skill expression for a player playing a carrier = no fun from dedicated carrier gameplay.
-Any composition of fighters that isn't all fighters, all bombers, or bombers+specific escort is made horrid by the inability to order groups separately (can't have fighters doing one thing and bombers another, all are forced to return at the same time etc).
-Fighters can only attack in a straight line with no control. The player can't do anything creative, and conversely never has to think about how to deal with enemy fighters that always come to them like lemmings.
I have two suggestions regarding this, plus one inspired by a game that, in its old iterations, succesfully managed to make certain aspects of pure carrier gameplay fun and dynamic despite being a simple, fast-paced and arcadey shooter game.
1. Allow the player and AI to select and order fighter groups separately like weapons are (while keeping the ability to select all).
2. Allow the player and AI to target locations for their fighters, not just ships. This allow fighters to flank or circle around ships exactly as the player/AI needs (giving control to do more than just click ships and watching them lemming into main guns), allows them to wait to the side before attacking when needed (instead of being stuck at the carrier under regroup or being blapped by flak uselessly), allows for pincer attacks, allows fighters to be sent to a location in advance to intercept an enemy fighters or frigates instead of reacting after it's too late, etc
The third suggestion is inspired by manual fighter attacks as they were originally implemented in old versions of the arcade shooter game World of Warships (I know that game is now hated for many reasons - but stick with me here).
In old versions of World of Warships, carrier players could target enemies with a selected fighter group for an automated attack, target an ally for automated escort, target locations to move fighters exactly where they wanted, and one more thing: players could manually "aim" bomber attack runs.
The player would click anywhere, drag a cone, and release/click again. The selected bomber group would then automatically maneuver to reach the "attack cone" and release their torpedo spread at the desired location and direction.
This allowed more skilled carrier players to make precise bomber attacks with perfect timing to catch and surprise even quick targets. In a game designed for fast paced shooter combat, it allowed carrier gameplay to require some skill despite being played from ships that hide away from the big fight. "Manual air attacks" effectively replaced "aiming your guns" for regular ships.
For Starsector in which fighters are treated as the carrier's "weapons" (LPCs and all that), this is, in my opinion, a perfect addition to make playing a dedicated carrier fun alongside the previous changes.
-
It used to be this way in .5 actually. There were fighter rally points and package-level strikes. It was better.
-
Before 0.8, fighters were ship-likes that took Logistics (pre-0.7) or fleet slots (0.7.x) instead of OP (0.8+). They could be commanded like ships, and fighter had some commands exclusive to them. Fighters were generally as strong as an unskilled frigate, and could be deployed without the carrier.
I prefer the pre-0.8 way because carriers back then had the OP to arm up like a warship and defend themselves (or bully smaller enemy ships). Today, they need to spend most of their OP on fighters and Expanded Deck Crew just to do their basic job of using fighters, at the expense of weapons and ITU.
-
Op:I think you played too much world of warship
Before 0.8, fighters were ship-likes that took Logistics (pre-0.7) or fleet slots (0.7.x) instead of OP (0.8+). They could be commanded like ships, and fighter had some commands exclusive to them. Fighters were generally as strong as an unskilled frigate, and could be deployed without the carrier.
I prefer the pre-0.8 way because carriers back then had the OP to arm up like a warship and defend themselves (or bully smaller enemy ships). Today, they need to spend most of their OP on fighters and Expanded Deck Crew just to do their basic job of using fighters, at the expense of weapons and ITU.
Is there a specific ship in your mind that doesn’t have enough OP to arm itself?
It’s also very bold statement of “doing basic jobs” because pre-0.8 carriers can’t even “do the basic jobs”. They take the full replacement time to re-arm bombers and it feels like forever.
Ships should be OP starved is the bottom line. Otherwise there will be lack of decision making.
-
Op:I think you played too much world of warship
I played it during beta years ago and dropped it knowing it'd become P2W due to who the devs are lol
Before 0.8, fighters were ship-likes that took Logistics (pre-0.7) or fleet slots (0.7.x) instead of OP (0.8+). They could be commanded like ships, and fighter had some commands exclusive to them. Fighters were generally as strong as an unskilled frigate, and could be deployed without the carrier.
I don't mind the current LPC implementation of fighters or their balance.
My only gripes come from lack of control of separate groups and lack of control over fighters.
-
Is there a specific ship in your mind that doesn’t have enough OP to arm itself?
It’s also very bold statement of “doing basic jobs” because pre-0.8 carriers can’t even “do the basic jobs”. They take the full replacement time to re-arm bombers and it feels like forever.
Ships should be OP starved is the bottom line. Otherwise there will be lack of decision making.
Using fighters better than Talons then adding Expanded Deck Crew eats too much OP. What is left is not enough to support guns and ITU, except maybe for Legion with a lean loadout. At that point, better to put what is left into speed and defenses so carrier can run away better.
Basic job of carrier before 0.6a was simply being on the field (to let fighters rebuild in mid-battle). During 0.6.x, simply being in the fleet to grant fighter wings immortality may be enough. Otherwise, deploying carriers with enough bays to let fighters regenerate in-battle would be. The stronger carriers could brawl like a warship too, basically acting like the Battlestar Galatica. (During 0.7.x, officers made carriers and fighters obsolete.)
No, ships should not be OP starved. That leads to the abomination of hulls with too many empty mounts because they need what little OP they have for one or two main guns and whatever flux stats and hullmods they need to fight effectively, not to mention no room for QoL campaign mods. Before 0.8a, with high OP and powerful skills, better ships could put guns in every mount (or most mounts) and support them.
-
Is there a specific ship in your mind that doesn’t have enough OP to arm itself?
It’s also very bold statement of “doing basic jobs” because pre-0.8 carriers can’t even “do the basic jobs”. They take the full replacement time to re-arm bombers and it feels like forever.
Ships should be OP starved is the bottom line. Otherwise there will be lack of decision making.
Using fighters better than Talons then adding Expanded Deck Crew eats too much OP. What is left is not enough to support guns and ITU, except maybe for Legion with a lean loadout. At that point, better to put what is left into speed and defenses so carrier can run away better.
Basic job of carrier before 0.6a was simply being on the field (to let fighters rebuild in mid-battle). During 0.6.x, simply being in the fleet to grant fighter wings immortality may be enough. Otherwise, deploying carriers with enough bays to let fighters regenerate in-battle would be. The stronger carriers could brawl like a warship too, basically acting like the Battlestar Galatica. (During 0.7.x, officers made carriers and fighters obsolete.)
No, ships should not be OP starved. That leads to the abomination of hulls with too many empty mounts because they need what little OP they have for one or two main guns and whatever flux stats and hullmods they need to fight effectively, not to mention no room for QoL campaign mods. Before 0.8a, with high OP and powerful skills, better ships could put guns in every mount (or most mounts) and support them.
ITU and EDC are not meant to be used simultaneously in first place.
A dedicated carrier does not necessarily need ITU since it doesn’t benefit as much; Support fighters on combat carrier shouldn’t need EDC since they almost never die.
A fighter bay should be safe to count as a medium mount in terms of Op observing from vanilla fighter cost distribution, thus as long as a ship can fit EDC + all weapon slots + 10* fighter bay count + some spare vent it is already considered having enough OP. The wide variation of OP cost is where you’ll need to make decisions and make fitting carriers not as brain dead.
https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=9052.0
I don’t have the brain to do the math atm but I don’t think vanilla has strayed away from the OP suggestion too much.
-
ITU and EDC are not meant to be used simultaneously in first place.
A dedicated carrier does not necessarily need ITU since it doesn’t benefit as much; Support fighters on combat carrier shouldn’t need EDC since they almost never die.
Why not? I think both are mandatory on Legion, since the point of using one instead of either Onslaught or Heron/Astral is it can brawl and use fighters (which it used to do decently before 0.95). Otherwise, it is best to ignore Legion and use either Onslaught and/or Heron/Astral, depending whether player wants guns or fighters.
(Odyssey used to be played like a carrier, but 0.9a has turned it into an extra-large Shrike, and the bays it has is a legacy of its former role and could be removed without affecting its modern role.)
Without ITU, there is no point to using guns on a carrier, and it is best to leave carriers unarmed (or minimally armed with flak or burst pd), which is a travesty. Carriers should be able to brawl or at least bully inferior ships with their guns while using whatever fighters they want (namely top-tier fighters or bombers), but current releases make that clearly sub-optimal or impossible. For carriers, better to use good fighters and overspecialize in fighter stuff instead of using Talons and guns. That used to not be the case before 0.8a.
-
ITU and EDC are not meant to be used simultaneously in first place.
A dedicated carrier does not necessarily need ITU since it doesn’t benefit as much; Support fighters on combat carrier shouldn’t need EDC since they almost never die.
Why not? I think both are mandatory on Legion, since the point of using one instead of either Onslaught or Heron/Astral is it can brawl and use fighters (which it used to do decently before 0.95). Otherwise, it is best to ignore Legion and use either Onslaught and/or Heron/Astral, depending whether player wants guns or fighters.
(Odyssey used to be played like a carrier, but 0.9a has turned it into an extra-large Shrike, and the bays it has is a legacy of its former role and could be removed without affecting its modern role.)
Without ITU, there is no point to using guns on a carrier, and it is best to leave carriers unarmed (or minimally armed with flak or burst pd), which is a travesty. Carriers should be able to brawl or at least bully inferior ships with their guns while using whatever fighters they want (namely top-tier fighters or bombers), but current releases make that clearly sub-optimal or impossible. For carriers, better to use good fighters and overspecialize in fighter stuff instead of using Talons and guns. That used to not be the case before 0.8a.
I can’t believe a min-maxer doesn’t want specialization.
Exactly as you said. Not every ship is meant to be a brawler. Dedicated carriers have AI programmed to stay way out of enemy gun range, for example, Astrals and Drover.
-
can you guys keep on topic please. can anybody come up with a reason why fighters shouldn't be given back an ability they have (and had) to attack at oblique angles instead of just yolo-ing directly into the enemy armor and gun belts please.
the fact that this was simplified away in the first place bothers me and since fighters are no longer nearly as oppressive as they were in .7x or w/e it was it'd be a good time to put it back and right the ship a little.
oh and if I were emperor i'd implement some real terrain in the game as well while we're throwing out ideas.
Totally on topic. promise.
-
Unfortunately the old fighter commands don't work with how strikecraft are currently controlled. I also liked being able to set bomber rally points for them to wait at until they had built up a critical mass for strikes and then return to after rearming - but it's gone and almost certainly won't be coming back.
The only fighter control upgrade that I could see being easy to implement with the way fighters work right now is the ability to tell strikecraft to dock and stay docked. That would be easily done by making it the hold-for-1-second functionality of the toggle-fighter-command button. No need for new controls, no possibility of conflict with existing controls.
-
Unfortunately the old fighter commands don't work with how strikecraft are currently controlled. I also liked being able to set bomber rally points for them to wait at until they had built up a critical mass for strikes and then return to after rearming - but it's gone and almost certainly won't be coming back.
I'm not advocating for the old fighter system though? I'm not talking about controlling all fighters with old rally points or anything.
Only for each carrier to have separate control for their own fighter groups like with other weapons, and to be able to move them to locations and not just click enemies/allies.
Right now you have this idiotic situation where your only interaction with your fighters as a player is "send ALL of my fighters to this targetship in a straight line" and "ALL of my fighters return". It's trash. It fails in every way at making fighters interactive and fun. It punishes you for having a variety of fighter wings. It makes any tactics impossible. It boggles my mind that an entire combat aspect of the game is in this state in 2021.
-
the fact that this was simplified away in the first place bothers me and since fighters are no longer nearly as oppressive as they were in .7x or w/e it was it'd be a good time to put it back and right the ship a little.
Fighters became meta in 0.8, after control over individual wings was taken away in favour of the current carrier-based approach.
-
it doesn't really matter that much. bring it back please.
-
Bump. Especially after carriers/fighters appear to have been further nerfed in .95 patch.
-
Currently they are at the "dud" end of the skill stick. I'm also for better fighter controls and making carriers worthwhile again. Maybe, if the skills aren't getting better, carriers could be given dedicated fighter OP and generally get an OP bump. Then the weaker fighter skills might actually synergize with a meta that leaves room to use them.
-
Carriers need to be useful enough to use without skills. Currently, Expanded Deck Crew alone is not enough to make carriers viable late in the game. Without skills, carriers are best retired or abandoned after player is done killing pirates in battles small enough to not spawn objectives.
If fighters as a whole will remain weak (not unlike Pilums), then support for warship-lite loadouts (with max vents, ITU, and enough assault weapons in some mounts, regardless of fighter choice) like before 0.8a needs to make a comeback.
It would be nice if Expanded Deck Crew became the baseline and the hullmod removed. Currently, despite being only 40% as powerful as last release, it is still a must-have OP tax on a carrier, because unskilled fighters still die off too quickly with Expanded Deck Crew.
Not every ship is meant to be a brawler. Dedicated carriers have AI programmed to stay way out of enemy gun range, for example, Astrals and Drover.
I do not mind default AI keeping its distance, but I miss the old warship-lite loadouts pre-0.8a carriers had. Also, warship-lite loadouts were useful for bigger carriers to shoot down small enemy ships that threaten it (despite carrier trying to hide away from the main battle). In the old days, Heron with warship-lite loadout could kill two enemy frigates or an Enforcer, and Astral could blow up an enemy cruiser. Today, if my carriers get caught by an enemy ship (and cannot outrun the enemy), it will die because it has no significant weapons to defend itself (because too much OP went to good fighters and Expanded Deck Crew).
If carriers do not have enough OP left to support guns, then mounts are pointless on them, and they should have none like the Phantom and Revenant because too many empty mounts on the ship makes it very ugly.
-
This isn't about carrier balance though, it's about control over fighters (or current lack thereof). Carrier balance can be its own discussion in another thread IMO.
-
If this suggestion were to be adopted, what hotkeys would be used for individual commands?
"z" currently sends wings to attack and regroup. It generally relies on having a target selected ("r") whether that is a ship or an enemy wing. You can just send them off without a target but that causes a lack of cohesion at times.
I don't think the cone idea from the OP is very practical, but a hotkey to cycle through wings by type ("shift-z" maybe?) that would allow the player to set several targets at once would be nice.
Then, for added nuance, a couple additional commands could be added that would alter the behavior of the strike when pressing "z" on a target. Something like "target engines", "side strike" or "coordinated strike" (wings wait for full member capacity before proceeding with the strike wave) would probably be useful. These commands could be assigned from the tactical screen or, alternatively, "shift-r" could cycle through the commands before "z" is pressed. The reasoning for this is that having to go to the tactical screen each time would most likely get tedious.
Of course, the AI would need at least a cursory understanding of when to use what command and have the ability to separate out strikes as well.
I think this would be time consuming and a bit difficult to implement in a way that feels right, but I agree that it would really solidify the carrier playstyle as a unique and fun way to play the game. The question is how worth it the work would be at this stage of development? I'd guess it would more be in the realm of "future expansion" then pre-1.0.
-
If this suggestion were to be adopted, what hotkeys would be used for individual commands?
"z" currently sends wings to attack and regroup. It generally relies on having a target selected ("r") whether that is a ship or an enemy wing. You can just send them off without a target but that causes a lack of cohesion at times.
I don't think the cone idea from the OP is very practical, but a hotkey to cycle through wings by type ("shift-z" maybe?) that would allow the player to set several targets at once would be nice.
Then, for added nuance, a couple additional commands could be added that would alter the behavior of the strike when pressing "z" on a target. Something like "target engines", "side strike" or "coordinated strike" (wings wait for full member capacity before proceeding with the strike wave) would probably be useful. These commands could be assigned from the tactical screen or, alternatively, "shift-r" could cycle through the commands before "z" is pressed. The reasoning for this is that having to go to the tactical screen each time would most likely get tedious.
Of course, the AI would need at least a cursory understanding of when to use what command and have the ability to separate out strikes as well.
I think this would be time consuming and a bit difficult to implement in a way that feels right, but I agree that it would really solidify the carrier playstyle as a unique and fun way to play the game. The question is how worth it the work would be at this stage of development? I'd guess it would more be in the realm of "future expansion" then pre-1.0.
I don't think that anything that complicated or time-consuming to implement would be needed.
Even just making fighter wings selectable separately like weapon groups (with alt+number) and having the ability to click locations in addition to clicking friendly/enemy ships would be enough to do most of that and make a massive difference.
As long as you're able to target a location on the battlefield, that already achieves "side strike" or "engine strike" - you click a location to the side or behind an enemy ship then target the ship for attack.
I'm not advocating for complex mechanics, rather, simple changes that can be used by players to do something more complex. Being able to target a location on the field for a given fighter wing is simple, but can achieve a lot.
-
If this suggestion were to be adopted, what hotkeys would be used for individual commands?
"z" currently sends wings to attack and regroup. It generally relies on having a target selected ("r") whether that is a ship or an enemy wing. You can just send them off without a target but that causes a lack of cohesion at times.
I don't think the cone idea from the OP is very practical, but a hotkey to cycle through wings by type ("shift-z" maybe?) that would allow the player to set several targets at once would be nice.
Then, for added nuance, a couple additional commands could be added that would alter the behavior of the strike when pressing "z" on a target. Something like "target engines", "side strike" or "coordinated strike" (wings wait for full member capacity before proceeding with the strike wave) would probably be useful. These commands could be assigned from the tactical screen or, alternatively, "shift-r" could cycle through the commands before "z" is pressed. The reasoning for this is that having to go to the tactical screen each time would most likely get tedious.
Of course, the AI would need at least a cursory understanding of when to use what command and have the ability to separate out strikes as well.
I think this would be time consuming and a bit difficult to implement in a way that feels right, but I agree that it would really solidify the carrier playstyle as a unique and fun way to play the game. The question is how worth it the work would be at this stage of development? I'd guess it would more be in the realm of "future expansion" then pre-1.0.
I don't think that anything that complicated or time-consuming to implement would be needed.
Even just making fighter wings selectable separately like weapon groups (with alt+number) and having the ability to click locations in addition to clicking friendly/enemy ships would be enough to do most of that and make a massive difference.
As long as you're able to target a location on the battlefield, that already achieves "side strike" or "engine strike" - you click a location to the side or behind an enemy ship then target the ship for attack.
I'm not advocating for complex mechanics, rather, simple changes that can be used by players to do something more complex. Being able to target a location on the field for a given fighter wing is simple, but can achieve a lot.
It's not quite going to work tbh.
1. Guided missile bombers are trigger happy and would happily drop their payload as soon as something is in range
2. Non-guided missile bombers may be fine or may be completely not fine since they may not be able to anticipate your intended target and adjust their vector accordingly. They simply refuse to drop bomb until perfectly lined up with target and it may waste a lot of time or even overshooting the target due to low agility of bombers.
3. Fighters don't really care since they swarm enemy and attack from all directions anyways.
-
It's not quite going to work tbh.
1. Guided missile bombers are trigger happy and would happily drop their payload as soon as something is in range
2. Non-guided missile bombers may be fine or may be completely not fine since they may not be able to anticipate your intended target and adjust their vector accordingly. They simply refuse to drop bomb until perfectly lined up with target and it may waste a lot of time or even overshooting the target due to low agility of bombers.
3. Fighters don't really care since they swarm enemy and attack from all directions anyways.
Who's saying that bombers would attack when given a move order? They wouldn't launch their payload less a ship is targeted. If the player is giving move orders, it's also up to them to give bombers space to make their run (trying to flank by putting the move order right next to the target wouldn't work well - same as in any other game).
"Fighter" fighters swarming is fine since it's how they fight anything. Separate wing controls and location targetting would still be highly beneficial even for them - sending fighters ahead of friendly ships to intercept bombers instead of waiting until they're already on top of allies, being able to send fighters to escort something while sending your bombers to attack a ship and all that.
-
I would like it if fighters could capture points like they used to in the pre-0.8a releases. That was my #1 or #2 use of fighters back then. Of course, most things were rare back then, unlike today when endgame player can produce everything short of automated ships and unique rewards.
Also gets tiring when a mostly carrier fleet with lone warship causes most fighters to escort your ship instead of attacking and killing the enemy (if your warship is not kissing the enemy), unlike pure carrier fleet that will send fighters to kill. There is not enough CP to order fighter strikes against every last target.
-
It's not quite going to work tbh.
1. Guided missile bombers are trigger happy and would happily drop their payload as soon as something is in range
2. Non-guided missile bombers may be fine or may be completely not fine since they may not be able to anticipate your intended target and adjust their vector accordingly. They simply refuse to drop bomb until perfectly lined up with target and it may waste a lot of time or even overshooting the target due to low agility of bombers.
3. Fighters don't really care since they swarm enemy and attack from all directions anyways.
Who's saying that bombers would attack when given a move order? They wouldn't launch their payload less a ship is targeted. If the player is giving move orders, it's also up to them to give bombers space to make their run (trying to flank by putting the move order right next to the target wouldn't work well - same as in any other game).
"Fighter" fighters swarming is fine since it's how they fight anything. Separate wing controls and location targetting would still be highly beneficial even for them - sending fighters ahead of friendly ships to intercept bombers instead of waiting until they're already on top of allies, being able to send fighters to escort something while sending your bombers to attack a ship and all that.
Bomber already fire at random target when set to regroup you expect them to behave when moving?
-
Bomber already fire at random target when set to regroup you expect them to behave when moving?
Bombers can just be set to not launch payloads when given a move order.
In the first place I don't get why bombers launch payloads outside of an engage/attack order. As you write it messes with them when regrouped (especially bad for battlecarriers).
-
I guess it could be doable by making fighter bays show up in the weapon groups and letting the ship's pilot direct them with mouse clicks (or even just by aiming the mouse, using clicks to make them shoot like manually controlled guns). Most dedicated carriers don't have the pilot doing manual weapon handling anyway. Would be tricky for a battlecarrier pilot to give out manual orders to fighters while also managing the main guns but a battlecarrier would probably just keep running the fighters on automatic when doing direct combat.
-
bump
also something needs to be done with piranhas. They were fine in .5 when everything was much slower but now they are enormous minimum 60 second setup negligible payoff missile that are slower and more vulnerable.