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 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 25

Author Topic: Fighter Redesign  (Read 148479 times)

CrashToDesktop

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Quartermaster
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #195 on: August 28, 2016, 01:34:16 PM »

It would be nice if that a carrier was ordered to capture a point, it would use its fighters to do it!
I think Alex said that Fighters no longer cap points, so that wouldn't work in the first place.
Logged
Quote from: Trylobot
I am officially an epoch.
Quote from: Thaago
Note: please sacrifice your goats responsibly, look up the proper pronunciation of Alex's name. We wouldn't want some other project receiving mystic power.

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #196 on: August 28, 2016, 01:35:34 PM »

I think Alex said that Fighters no longer cap points, so that wouldn't work in the first place.
i'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too difficult to change that, if it was desired.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #197 on: August 28, 2016, 02:56:30 PM »

An idea: maybe you could control more than only your own carrier's fighters by letting other carriers escort/support you. And then their fighters listen to your command, too.

That gives you better ability to pull off elaborate fighter tactics, without making carrier flagships pointless or adding command UI clutter. Would also be rad for controlling groups of fast carriers behind enemy lines.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 01:02:58 AM 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.

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #198 on: August 28, 2016, 06:02:39 PM »

!!! Like, ordering a carrier to escort a carrier makes its fighters only escort their mother ship until they get within range of target, and then the fighters switch over to the new carrier as if it were their mother ship and their original carrier just escorts it however it's officer's preference makes it, until the order is rescinded or the original falls out of softie range and they're forced to retreat back to the safety of their waiting hanger?
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #199 on: August 28, 2016, 10:28:21 PM »

!!! Like, ordering a carrier to escort a carrier makes its fighters only escort their mother ship until they get within range of target, and then the fighters switch over to the new carrier as if it were their mother ship and their original carrier just escorts it however it's officer's preference makes it, until the order is rescinded or the original falls out of softie range and they're forced to retreat back to the safety of their waiting hanger?

That is one heck of a sentence! :D

And what about extending this idea in general: if you are being escorted by fighters, they become weapons that you can order like you were a carrier?
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #200 on: August 28, 2016, 10:39:14 PM »

And what about extending this idea in general: if you are being escorted by fighters, they become weapons that you can order like you were a carrier?
but that would do the opposite of making carriers more attractive player flagships.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #201 on: August 28, 2016, 11:34:40 PM »

Hrmm, that is true - it would be more optimal to just have a carrier nearby set to escort your own combat ship. Bad idea then! Gothars original idea of doubling up carriers seems good though.
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #202 on: August 29, 2016, 12:31:09 AM »

i'm not sold to be honest

the chief problems with carriers (and fighters) were:

-PD weapons too cheap and too effective
-ranges far too short compared to PD weapons
-fighters too weak, too slow, do not do enough damage (some of all three)
-far more cost (monetary and deployment) required by fighters than just bringing anything else


among others. removing any real fine management from carriers as a platform (no rally point, what?) and slaving them directly to carriers (which i don't care about i guess) isn't going to make them any better. they still don't scale, they still don't do much damage, they're still too weak, too few, too slow etc

did you change any of that? i don't really get all this talk of "support weapon".. there's no electronic warfare modelled in the game so how is any weapon a "support weapon"? by definition you kill the enemy with a weapon, and if it's substandard at killing the enemy it's a bad weapon, not a support weapon.

now if you were going to change them into actually well distinguished strike / interception / space control / EW platforms then they could be a support weapon, but that isn't exactly what they are now, or is it?

as it is, the only way to use the new fighters to any great effectiveness will be to deathball the carriers up so they all attack the same target, which neglects the whole point of carriers in the first place: that they're capable of pooling their resources across a wide front and striking the enemy's weakest point. i mean, all strategy has essentially been removed with the removal of rally point; where before you could exploit the slow-turning battleship's shield arc, form up a wall of strike wings on it's side and run in with a wall of deadly torpedoes, now the AI will just dive into it's frontal shield. having to have the carrier physically flank the battleship (something which won't even be possible half the time, due to the battleship's friends and fighters shooting you to death as you try) doesn't even make sense.

i hope my doubts are assuaged when the patch comes out, but this was not the direction i had hoped for to be quite honest. what i hoped for was that fighters would get more fighter-y, not less. removing 90% of the stuff that made them unique and turning them into what are essentially point defense drones was not what i was after. i'm not sure what all the "fighters require too much micro" complaints are about. they require 10 keypresses in the heaviest of battles:

-rally carrier
-strike force waypoint
-wait till they're assembled in a minute or two
-strike
-^repeat strike a few times

if you don't like clicking a few buttons to shepherd your fighters, you don't have to. but personally i kind of liked it.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 12:37:49 AM by Cik »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #203 on: August 29, 2016, 12:41:11 AM »

Well, now they won't count towards the 25 ship limit so that's a big plus. Some of them got reworked and we also got 2 new ones. Maybe you're right, maybe they'll still be crap and rarely used in the campaign, but for right now you can't possibly know how it'll all turn out. Just wait and see my friend.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #204 on: August 29, 2016, 12:47:07 AM »

the 25 ship limit is immaterial as imo it shouldn't even exist. turning fighters into disposable chaff easily swept from the field over and over is going in the wrong direction; they should be threatening, not an eternally-respawning nuisance shrugged aside by ships not even fitted to be particularly good at point defense.

since the faery swordfish sunk the bismarck planes have been a menace to even the heaviest of battleships, and if we're going with a conventional fictional space setting, this should not be any different. hell, even with the lore it doesn't make sense; it says onslaughts are supposed to be vulnerable to fighters, and yet they're essentially invincible.

as far as it's been elaborated on, this redesign misses out on the entire thrust of the problems with fighters generally, redoes a bunch of stuff i enjoyed about them, and removes all uniqueness they had. unless the rebalance is far, far broader than has been detailed it's no good.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #205 on: August 29, 2016, 01:02:15 AM »

And what about extending this idea in general: if you are being escorted by fighters, they become weapons that you can order like you were a carrier?
but that would do the opposite of making carriers more attractive player flagships.

My thought process exactly^^


they still don't scale, they still don't do much damage, they're still too weak, too few, too slow etc


This change was more about introducing a cleaner mechanic, not about buffing fighters. Making them generally powerful enough is a question of adjusting individual stats, which is comparatively straightforward. Fighters will get skill/officer interaction, which will take care of the scaling, too.


I agree that the loss of the tactical options that direct fighter control enabled is a real downside of this change. That's why we are trying to come up with things like in my last suggestion.
(On the other hand, we are getting new tactical options because of the combined arms approach and easier coordination. And the enemy AI should get better with them, atm it's using the "slow replacement trickle" too often.)


Regarding your question about how they can be a support weapon, here's an example, in case you missed it: https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/768867505595187200/photo/1

Broadswords are using flares to distract enemy PD and enable torpedoes to get trough.




« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 01:13:19 AM 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.

sycspysycspy

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Translator of the Council of AL
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #206 on: August 29, 2016, 03:05:40 AM »

Any chance we could get kamikaza fighters?  ::)
Logged
Please report any translation error to me with PM.
- I just went over to my bank account and figured out I can live comfortably without working for the rest of my life as long as I die on next Tuesday.

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #207 on: August 29, 2016, 03:45:49 AM »

Any chance we could get kamikaza fighters?  ::)

Armored (well, compared to usual missiles), possibly shielded and re-spawning missiles that take fighter slot? Doesn't sound balanced and seems more convoluted than necessary ...

Plus all fighters are effectively suicidal already, you just propose making some fighters better at it.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 03:49:35 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #208 on: August 29, 2016, 04:13:13 AM »

And what about extending this idea in general: if you are being escorted by fighters, they become weapons that you can order like you were a carrier?
but that would do the opposite of making carriers more attractive player flagships.

My thought process exactly^^


they still don't scale, they still don't do much damage, they're still too weak, too few, too slow etc


This change was more about introducing a cleaner mechanic, not about buffing fighters. Making them generally powerful enough is a question of adjusting individual stats, which is comparatively straightforward. Fighters will get skill/officer interaction, which will take care of the scaling, too.


I agree that the loss of the tactical options that direct fighter control enabled is a real downside of this change. That's why we are trying to come up with things like in my last suggestion.
(On the other hand, we are getting new tactical options because of the combined arms approach and easier coordination. And the enemy AI should get better with them, atm it's using the "slow replacement trickle" too often.)


Regarding your question about how they can be a support weapon, here's an example, in case you missed it: https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/768867505595187200/photo/1

Broadswords are using flares to distract enemy PD and enable torpedoes to get trough.






removing strike waypoints is an enormous nerf to fighters, which is exactly the opposite direction we need to go in. removing complexity from a game that's supposed to be complex. why.exe
Logged

Jonlissla

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Redesign
« Reply #209 on: August 29, 2016, 04:58:38 AM »

I'm not too concerned about potential balance issues since things can always be tweaked, and I have nothing against this rework. Always fun with new things.

What I am worried about however is the perfomance. If you get several carriers, each with several fighters, perfomance is going to drop like a brick.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 25