Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 25

Author Topic: Fighter Redesign  (Read 149135 times)

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #240 on: August 30, 2016, 03:17:33 AM »

Alex, are you planning on nerfing the atropos? And what would you think of extending the activation range? I love the power and the aim of the torpedo, and I'd hate to see it get nerfed just for not sitting on the hammer/reaper alpha damage curve.
I mean, the atropos can be bank-shot past a close target to pass, turn about and make a strike on the back
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #241 on: August 30, 2016, 05:56:24 AM »

@ Thaago:  Single flak, sure.  Dual flak, with high DPS and AoE?  That thing will chew through fighters (and bigger).  Maybe not individually, but when it hits more than one at a time, total damage can be better, even if fragmentation, which does not matter much due to minimal armor.  As for beams, I find them better suited for long range interception (which Tactical Laser is best at); but short range, it seems to take ages to kill a fighter, enough that I sometimes use IR pulse lasers instead for more stopping power.

Beams are okay for long-range preventive PD.  But for emergency short-range PD when and where things need to die now, nothing beats Vulcan and Flak.  For those stuck with energy, IR pulse laser is probably best, if unreliable, but PD laser will do for the cheap.  (Burst PD is a bit too expensive for most ships.)

Re: Atropos
I like the current Atropos.  If anything, it does not feel quite damaging enough for the OP I pay for unless I have Missile Specialization.  But at least Atropos is one of the few missiles that is effective and reliable without Missile Specialization.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #242 on: August 30, 2016, 10:02:49 AM »

Quote
Different fighters have different maximum ranges at which they can operate

So, what happens when you command your fighters to engage an enemy that is nor in range? And what if it is in range for some of your fighters, but not all? What if an enemy leaves the range during the fight? Is there something in the UI informing you?
How strict is the range limit anyway, can fighters not leave the radius at all? Because it seems that would be abusable by hanging just outside their operational range (with a ship faster than their carrier) and snipe at them.



Maybe it would be nice if fighters could leave their normal radius with a special order, but that would quickly tank their carrier's replacement rate. That way they'd be more useful in pursuit situations or when some emergency requires a quick intervention, without messing up balance in a normal fight.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #243 on: August 30, 2016, 10:06:43 AM »

Currently, we can deploy fighters without the carrier.  Useful when deploying the Astral or Odyssey is too expensive, so just send in the fighters!  I guess that will not be possible anymore.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24127
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #244 on: August 30, 2016, 11:52:52 AM »

Oh man, hope I wasn't being difficult.  I had just gotten off work and was trying to type stuff up on my phone.  Let me see if I can make things a bit more clear.

No worries, not at all. Hopefully I didn't come off as defensive or offended, if I did it wasn't my intent.

Spoiler
I wouldn't call that "micromanaging". Micromanaging would be if you're doing it per-wing, this is regular "managing" :) You're pressing one button maybe every 10 seconds. Enough to be engaging since you need to pay attention and decide, but far from enough to be "micromanagement", if we take that term to imply an amount of controlling that's an unwanted hassle. I mean, I suppose that's subjective - maybe someone doesn't want to press any buttons, right - but this seems generally reasonable.

I absolutely understand a lot of this is going to be subjective.  For sure, I haven't played your new mechanics and they could be great!  But at the same time, they could just be going in a direction that I'm not really looking for.

When I'm playing a carrier, the idea is that I'm the conductor of a giant space orchestra.  Flying the carrier is a lot more about predicting where I should be in the future while directing the action around the carrier (which means I spec a lot into the leadership skills).  I use the carrier itself as an anchor of sorts for the front line.  In many ways, the carrier and escorts is the anvil , and the fighters, bombers, and other ships of the fleet are the hammer.

When I say micromanagement, I'm kind of thinking that I'm now having to dance between 2 different systems.  Managing the fleet in the map, and now managing the fighters separately with what's basically a hold-fire auto-fire command, as well as using the missiles/harassment/support weapon systems I generally try to run on the carrier.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but the allure of flying the carrier was not as much about the carrier itself, but it's interactions with the entire battle.

Starsector is not an RTS, for sure.  This may be an odd way to think about it, but playing like this feels a lot more like the old Rainbow Six games.  You had the Planning phase where you figured out what you wanted to do, then you actually controlled one of the parts of that plan during execution.

Regarding flanking: if your carrier positioning doesn't matter very much (beyond "out of trouble" and "not too far"), then that's one less reason to fly it yourself. (I'll say, it'd be more interesting to see *why* you think that, and other things. As it is, all I can see is that you strongly don't think that should be the case (due to caps), but not what about it makes you feel that way, beyond it being the fighters' job. There's just not much discussion to be had without knowing about the "why" of things.)

I do see what you're saying regarding fighters doing this on their own, but to me that's far from being the "entire point" of fighters. If's just one more thing they could potentially do.

I would probably say the biggest strategic use of a carrier, at least in modern combat, is force projection.  In Starsector, that meant being more of a support craft for these smaller, faster craft.  The idea, I had always felt, was that positioning of the carrier was about maintaining a balance of being close enough to the battle for quick refit anywhere on the battle map, but just far enough to not be under significant threat from more deadly ships.  Flying a capital-class carrier, that's about staying just close enough to the main task force of the enemy to trade potshots, but far enough to avoid more severe burst damage.  You and your escorts are what make you an anvil here.  A couple of destroyers or, late game, a couple of cruiser escorts create a very difficult defensive line to beat.  The escorts duck in and out to deal stronger burst damage, while you try to maintain good overall directional and distance positioning to make them effective in both defense and offense.  As a bit of an afterthought, this is part of why I generally don't have capital-class battleships and that sort of thing in my fleet, a carrier group's front line just isn't as concentrated.

And the strike craft come into play here.  Usually with a fighter escort, the strike craft wait for an opportune moment, then I have them do a run to make a more severe blow.  Daggers set up on a flank waiting for the fleet to bring the flux up on the ship, or a couple of Piranha wings to throw out their field of bombs from the rear to distract their shield facings for a swift assault from strike destroyers.  The relatively high speeds and, surprisingly, survivability when they're separated from the fleet is what makes them useful here.  (And when I'm talking about survivability, generally they're pretty good at avoiding enemies before their attack, rather than actually taking hits.)

That's why it's hard for me to say that that's not the entire point of fighters/bombers.  Because, in use, the point of them is for swift, brief strikes to throw an enemy off-balance, not necessarily a weapon.  They're more of a tool than that.

I don't understand what you mean. Why would you want to actually fly a carrier yourself if you have full strategic control over fighters anyway? Wouldn't you want to fly a more combat-capable ship where your ability to control it makes a difference to its performance, vs one where it doesn't?

I hope I've at least somewhat answered this already, but the ability to control the carrier really does make a difference in it's performance!  :)  The control of it is just a bit more subtle and a great deal about planning and preparation.  Flying the carrier means I'm not having to make constant command changes when it comes to placement and even then, using it in this way, the AI doesn't do a very good job of keeping it alive.

I'll be the first to say that this isn't really how carriers are used, and probably all of what I've said should be taken with a grain of salt.  In reality, a carrier battle group's capabilities don't really come from direct naval engagement.  It comes from being able to project force in a vast region, over massive distances.  I really doubt that this is going to be modeled in this game.  That's not really the point of Starsector.   ;D  But if the game's going to have them, I really do want to see some of the tactical flexibility of a carrier modeled at least in combat.

Edit: just want to make clear, this "loss of strategic control" is definitely a loss in my book, no argument on that point at all. I just think that what we get in return will turn out better.

In the end, Alex, I hope for the best!  You're a great designer and I've loved what you've done so far.  I love the game and I definitely will when this new update releases, but maybe just a bit less if the fighter redesign doesn't pan out well.  We'll see when it comes out.  I can say, though, that when it does come out, I may end up missing playing my favorite role.

Thanks for all your responses!
[close]

Thank you for the detailed explanation, that makes a lot of sense. I guess we'll have to see - I honestly can't tell you *exactly* how it plays in larger fleet battles right now, in part because to what degree (if at all) assignments affect fighters is not 100% settled. It does sound like the "carefully position yourself" aspect of it should carry over in any case, though, even if the considerations are a bit different. In general, I'm a big fan of that, and "thinking ahead" being a key element of piloting larger ships, and this next update should hopefully move things in that direction, both for carriers and combat ships.


Alex, are you planning on nerfing the atropos? And what would you think of extending the activation range? I love the power and the aim of the torpedo, and I'd hate to see it get nerfed just for not sitting on the hammer/reaper alpha damage curve.
I mean, the atropos can be bank-shot past a close target to pass, turn about and make a strike on the back

Not sure. Not because of fighters, in any event.


So, what happens when you command your fighters to engage an enemy that is nor in range? And what if it is in range for some of your fighters, but not all? What if an enemy leaves the range during the fight? Is there something in the UI informing you?
How strict is the range limit anyway, can fighters not leave the radius at all? Because it seems that would be abusable by hanging just outside their operational range (with a ship faster than their carrier) and snipe at them.

If it's out of range, they just don't go. If they *do* go, then they get an extra thousand units of leeway, so that hovering just in/out of range doesn't cause weird behavior.


Currently, we can deploy fighters without the carrier.  Useful when deploying the Astral or Odyssey is too expensive, so just send in the fighters!  I guess that will not be possible anymore.

Yeah, it's not. On the bright side, that cleans up a lot of weird rules about what to do when you do this and the fighter wing is destroyed.
Logged

gozer

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #245 on: August 30, 2016, 01:13:38 PM »

very interesting
Logged

Andy H.K.

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #246 on: August 30, 2016, 10:25:48 PM »

...

I absolutely understand a lot of this is going to be subjective.  For sure, I haven't played your new mechanics and they could be great!  But at the same time, they could just be going in a direction that I'm not really looking for.

When I'm playing a carrier, the idea is that I'm the conductor of a giant space orchestra.  Flying the carrier is a lot more about predicting where I should be in the future while directing the action around the carrier (which means I spec a lot into the leadership skills).  I use the carrier itself as an anchor of sorts for the front line.  In many ways, the carrier and escorts is the anvil , and the fighters, bombers, and other ships of the fleet are the hammer.

When I say micromanagement, I'm kind of thinking that I'm now having to dance between 2 different systems.  Managing the fleet in the map, and now managing the fighters separately with what's basically a hold-fire auto-fire command, as well as using the missiles/harassment/support weapon systems I generally try to run on the carrier.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but the allure of flying the carrier was not as much about the carrier itself, but it's interactions with the entire battle.

....

For me it's an entirely different story. I think the new system means less micromanagement.

Even right now it's possible to have very tight control over how fighters/bombers behave. I can control when they refit with "rally carrier", make them flank by putting a "rally strike force" assignment sideways of a target before placing a "strike" assignment on it.

The problem is that it's very inflexible. Situations change constantly and you have to keep moving your assignment (meanwhile burning a lot of command points). You have to keep checking the tactical map and that divert a lot of attention from the action, not to mention most often I just forget about it altogether, leaving them too far away from the battle.

It would be clean and neat if I could control fighters simply by ordering the carrier itself. It may also be safer to the carrier itself as it's no longer tethered to a way point and knows to fall back as needed.

By the way, would we be seeing new, fighter-centric combat skills? With the fighter redesign it seems way easier to buff them with skills/hullmods.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #247 on: August 31, 2016, 01:56:09 AM »

So, what happens when you command your fighters to engage an enemy that is not in range?
If it's out of range, they just don't go. If they *do* go, then they get an extra thousand units of leeway, so that hovering just in/out of range doesn't cause weird behavior.

I see, nice. Uh, sorry for all these many questions, and thanks for all the answers ;)



By the way, would we be seeing new, fighter-centric combat skills? With the fighter redesign it seems way easier to buff them with skills/hullmods.

Yeah, they were kinda announced in the blogpost:
Quote
Then, of course, there’s addressing how fighters scale up as player skills come into play, but that’s another topic.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #248 on: August 31, 2016, 06:35:07 AM »

Quote from: Alex
Not actually sure what you mean here! There's no real benefit to only having 2 out of 6 wings in terms of how quickly they're launched or re-launched. "Burst-launch"?
I mean, if I'm using certain types of Fighters, and they're essentially weapons, I'm going to use them in a big alpha-strike or not at all. 

Basically, the regeneration rate will matter sometimes but there are situations where the goal's going to be saturation.  The regen bar, as described, sounds like it's tied to the number of Fighters we're regenerating to get back up to "full"; if that's the case, then I'm going to want to hoard those fighters for bursts, rather than stream them in.  Because then my regen-bar will be near max and I can follow up as the Wing dies.  Think about torpedo bombers in that situation.

Anyhow, I like the rest of what you've said here and I'm really looking forward to this next major update :)
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #249 on: August 31, 2016, 06:55:31 AM »

I anticipate using fighters either as an unlimited missile (Salamander or Pilum) substitute or as detachable PD (akin to Tempest's drone).  Instead of auto-mounting Pilums on Dominator/Onslaught (and Salamanders for Paragon), I may install a hangar on such ships for fighters.  I doubt there will be enough OP for both missiles and hangar without giving up more important stuff like Augmented Engines, ITU, and Hardened Subsystems.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #250 on: August 31, 2016, 12:32:32 PM »

Silly idea:  Hound Mk. II with built-in hullmods Converted Hangar and Ill-Advised Modifications.  Lose the small turret so that only the medium hardpoint remains.
Logged

Unreal_One

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #251 on: August 31, 2016, 01:09:07 PM »

Basically, the regeneration rate will matter sometimes but there are situations where the goal's going to be saturation.  The regen bar, as described, sounds like it's tied to the number of Fighters we're regenerating to get back up to "full"; if that's the case, then I'm going to want to hoard those fighters for bursts, rather than stream them in.  Because then my regen-bar will be near max and I can follow up as the Wing dies.  Think about torpedo bombers in that situation.

That's what the regroup command is for; you stream out your fighters to space while regrouping, then send them out to attack, then call the survivors back, etc.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #252 on: August 31, 2016, 01:12:51 PM »

Silly idea:  Hound Mk. II with built-in hullmods Converted Hangar and Ill-Advised Modifications.  Lose the small turret so that only the medium hardpoint remains.


That would be more fitting for a Cerberus, I believe. It's a bit lost, now that the Wayfarer took over its intended niche.

What's also missing from the ship roster is a purpose build destroyer-sized carrier. Maybe something high-tech. I expect many people will want to play as carrier captains now, and at the moment the Condor seems the only real way to get started.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 01:18:02 PM by Gothars »
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #253 on: August 31, 2016, 02:14:29 PM »

I suggested Hound due to its three hangar points from pre-0.6 days, and Mudskipper is the small frigate with the jury-rigged big gun.  A broken pirate Hound with a dysfunctional flight deck would be a joke ship that is a call back to the three hangar points it used to have.

Cerberus' role is a mini-Tarsus that can run from almost everything with Burn Drive.  Hound and Cerberus are my go-to for early game freighters (when I am not strong enough to kill everything).  With max OP and Front Shield Generator, Cerberus can be a better general-purpose combat ship than a Lasher (due to better guns and armor), but that is for an endgame frigate fleet, which 25 ship limit has hurt.  Of course, Wayfarer is a decent fighting ship, easier to fight with than Centurion after I get enough skills.

As for destroyer-sized dedicated carrier, Condor seems to be it, but it is so unsatisfying to play.  (Despite lore saying otherwise, Condor's stats make it look like a purpose-built carrier.)  Terrible weapon mounts, terrible flux stats; its has two uses - fighters and Salamander/Pilum spam.  More high-tech carriers smaller than Astral would be good.  I suppose Heron could be high-tech, if only it was blue instead of yellow-ish.
Logged

Dri

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #254 on: August 31, 2016, 10:09:11 PM »

Whew, this is now officially the most discussed blog post in Starsector's history! Obviously a lot of people feel pretty damn passionate about those lil' fighters!

Lets trust that the clever minds behind Starsector will nail this overhaul and things will be better than ever!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 25