Print

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

[Dark.Revenant]

I'd propose nerfing certain fighters and making mid-mission fighter repair take much longer, like 2-3x longer.  That ought to fix most of the issues.

[Anysy]

I just feel that overall the difference between small weapons and large weapons (in addition to large ship shield and hull numbers) isnt large enough

Small pulse laser: 100 deeps
medium pulse laser: 200 deeps
heavy pulse laser 600 deeps

I feel like the numbers on medium and heavy could be a lot higher (similarly with their flux/dissipation numbers, honestly)

[factotum]

Why would they use anything less? Given the amount of punishment fighters can take, it makes sense that they'd use warship size weapons.

They should have a penalty for doing so, then--make a fighter that can mount a warship-grade MG as slow and unmanoeuvrable as Piranhas and people would soon stop complaining about how OP they are! Conversely, any fighter that is fast and nimble must have their own fighter-size weaponry that does maybe half the damage of a warship one, or else have severe flux dissipation issues. Flux makes sense here, actually--it's already the method used to balance larger ships, so it ought to be the same for fighters! If your Broadsword wing could only fire for a couple of seconds before having to run away to cool down they'd be much better balanced.

[Iscariot]

They should have a penalty for doing so, then--make a fighter that can mount a warship-grade MG as slow and unmanoeuvrable as Piranhas and people would soon stop complaining about how OP they are!

That doesn't make any sense. Most fighters can tank at least one deck gun round, so even interceptors, which are intended to fight other fighters, would mount weapons at least within spitting distance of frigate weaponry. Otherwise what's the point? You just get Battlestar Galactica-- the fighters are just there to fight each other and are basically pointless.

Conversely, any fighter that is fast and nimble must have their own fighter-size weaponry that does maybe half the damage of a warship one, or else have severe flux dissipation issues. Flux makes sense here, actually--it's already the method used to balance larger ships, so it ought to be the same for fighters! If your Broadsword wing could only fire for a couple of seconds before having to run away to cool down they'd be much better balanced.

Doesn't that result in the same thing that I was suggesting? More timid fighters?

[Dr.Noid]

Well, fighters are for taking down bombers and enemy fighters trying to take down your bombers. Bombers are for taking down big ships. So it would make sense that fighters can't do much against anything bigger than a frigate. Bombers mount the weapons that can take down big stuff, but those big weapons make the bomber less manoeuvrable and thus they require fighter support to keep enemy fighters away from them.

[Iscariot]

They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.

[Nanostrike]

Well, fighters are for taking down bombers and enemy fighters trying to take down your bombers. Bombers are for taking down big ships. So it would make sense that fighters can't do much against anything bigger than a frigate. Bombers mount the weapons that can take down big stuff, but those big weapons make the bomber less manoeuvrable and thus they require fighter support to keep enemy fighters away from them.

This is what it should be, really.  Because with the way things are, I'd rather fight 2 wings of Pirhanas at once than a single wing of Broadswords.

Fighters and Interceptors should be of minimal threat to anything larger than a Frigate.

[factotum]

They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.

You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?

[Thana]

They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.

You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?

These two assertions are not mutually exclusive.

As for the fighters overloading shields of large ships issue: I think that has to do with many of them using kinetic weapons, many of which are designed for two purposes. As secondary point defence weapons and - which is the relevant thing here - shield overloaders. Whether the devs assigned those weapons (like machine guns) with this intention in mind or not I wouldn't care to speculate, but that's certainly the emergent state of affairs.

[Iscariot]

They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.

You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'll repeat myself. There is no fighter that carries a weapon that a frigate can't.

[Nanostrike]

They don't carry anything bigger than a frigate.

You've never seen a few wings of Broadswords single-handedly wipe out a Venture (or even a Dominator), then?

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'll repeat myself. There is no fighter that carries a weapon that a frigate can't.

His point is that a couple wings of relatively inexpensive FIGHTERS (Not anti-capital ship bombers, torpedo bombers, or even Assault Fighters!) are capable of wiping out a large ships easily.

Part of it is due to using exclusively Kinetic weapons (Which is why I think most Fighter "Machine Guns" should be changed to Vulcans, really), and part of it is because they're tiny *** that can't be swatted down like Frigates can.

And that's not even taking into account that they can be repaired fully in mid-battle by a carrier.

[Gaizokubanou]

There is no fighter that carries a weapon that a frigate can't.

Precisely!  Try a lasher with 5 dual MG.  You can overload lock pretty much anything.

Problem is how powerful MGs are for small ballistic weapon partly due to having high dps and partly because of the inability for the AI to handle kinetic damage.

Part of it is due to using exclusively Kinetic weapons (Which is why I think most Fighter "Machine Guns" should be changed to Vulcans, really), and part of it is because they're tiny *** that can't be swatted down like Frigates can.

And that's not even taking into account that they can be repaired fully in mid-battle by a carrier.

And this too.  Another benefit of massing up fighters is that they have no hull collision, which means you can mass up any number of them at a given space.  Try to use 6 frigates and watch them do jack squat other than playing bumper car with each other.

[icepick37]

Yeah that last point is very very true.

I don't know quite how I feel about fighters. It does feel wrong for them to carry frigate sized weapons.

But they also aren't common in such huge numbers, and they are very easy to deal with given proper frag weapons.

I guess the real problem is that the ai sucks at countering them. Maybe that's something that will be addressed better by economy?

[Adjutant]

what i don't understand is the random satellites you have to capture in the game. That running around is what makes fighters so overpowered.

it doesn't even make sense, why are there random satellites all over space? i assume its to make the AI coding easier but you could at least have the ai not spread out his  forces in an attempt to capture everything at once.

[Iscariot]

His point is that a couple wings of relatively inexpensive FIGHTERS (Not anti-capital ship bombers, torpedo bombers, or even Assault Fighters!) are capable of wiping out a large ships easily.

Part of it is due to using exclusively Kinetic weapons (Which is why I think most Fighter "Machine Guns" should be changed to Vulcans, really), and part of it is because they're tiny *** that can't be swatted down like Frigates can.

And that's not even taking into account that they can be repaired fully in mid-battle by a carrier.

Yeah, I got that. And I agree that fighters are overpowered and offer a ridiculous cost-effect ratio compared to capital ships. I just don't agree that reducing weapon damage based on ship class is a good solution, or making them carry some even smaller class of weapon. The latter just makes no sense. As I said already, fighters are strong enough to tank quite a bit of damage, strong enough to survive a blast from a deck gun oftentimes. It doesn't make sense that they'd carry impotent weapons; they wouldn't be able to fight even each other.