Print

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

[Plantissue]

Morrokain, we are talking around in circles. As you clearly have given this a lot of thought and time in writing, I want to pay respect to that by reply back to your post. The effects you describe as of the suggestions is part and parcel of the intention and I am perfectly fine with those effects you describe.  I am perfectly fine with reducing the initial staying power of the first wave, as a way to prevent the warding off effect of fighter-type fighters and I'll it leave with that.

[MrDaddyPants]

I've been active in fleet building tourneys and can't really speak for campaign balance.

The problem with fighters balance is that they are (speaking about vanilla) very very weak dps wise. 3 Drovers (36dp) with reserve deployment attacking your ship is not much rly. Probably equivalent of one SO HH with ammo feeder active (10dp). So nerfing them may relegate fighters to niche roles like astral bomber combo, or some extra missile pd.

What makes them broken is two aspects.

1) Ai. Once you reach critical mass AI just tries to shoot fighters, kites back, and basically never reaches carriers because it's afraid and tries to kill the fighters first.

2) Killing fighters does nothing or very close to nothing. It doesn't affect replacement rates enough, and it doesn't affect CR of carriers, you are just shooting fighters and slowly take hull damage or loose ships. And in vanilla there are very few ships and weapons that can actually kill fighters efficiently. One could even argue there is no ship or weapon combination that can actually counter fighter swarm.

What ends up happening is that most tourney winning fleets (and they are usually very very good fleets) would just straight up loose to a good carrier fleet in equal DP. And it's usually a shame (no carriers die). And to actually counter carrier fleet you almost always need even better carrier fleet, a fleet that has it's own carriers and combination of ships and wpns that is better at carrier warfare than the other carrier fleet. So i'm big proponent of fighter limits in fleet building tourneys.

My proposition for balance is CR loss to carriers when fighters die (or just decrease replacement rate more rapidly). It doesn't affect fighters hp and dps, which is pretty low in vanilla, it doesn't upgrade AI (which is super hard), and which could make carriers useless. It may solve critical mass carrier fleets stomping opposition because killing fighters would actually have meaningful impact on battle.

Buffing effects of replacement rate decrease may be overall better solution, because direct CR loss might lead to ppl not wanting to put any fighters on ships like odyssey fearing CR loss.

[Thaago]

I'm not sure about CR loss for the exact reason you state, and because in campaign CR loss = more supplies needed = money (and also subsequent fights if forced to chain battle). Increasing fighter replacement times, or making carrier replacement rate go down significantly faster, would be good to stop the issue of killing fighters not doing anything: thats an issue I've also noticed, especially on Drovers, whose system can boost their wings above the replacement threshold, letting their replacement tick up instead of down while the system is active.

Another tweak could be for Expanded Deck Crew to come with a malus of some sort, and to not have a skill that effects replacement rate.

[Megas]

Another tweak could be for Expanded Deck Crew to come with a malus of some sort, and to not have a skill that effects replacement rate.

Rather see that hullmod disappear so carriers can get ITU and some guns (or maybe Expanded Missile Racks and missiles) instead like they used to.  Barring that, a replacement hullmod that negates the penalties from carrier (D) mods (and maybe Converted Hangar), with no cost beyond OP.  Aside, Expanded Deck Crew has a malus, +20 crew requirements.  That is not insignificant for some fleet configurations earlier in the campaign, before player has effectively infinite resources.

With current Expanded Deck Crew, I am highly incentivized to get it and min-max carrier stats to have the best fighter spewing machines, because the point of the carrier is to spew fighters.  If player must throw everything into high-end fighters and carrier hullmods to be the best, while leaving every mount empty, so be it.  If their stats need to be weakened, do it by removing the enablers so that the player is forced to branch out, like getting enough guns to shoot down weaker ships because player may not have anything better to spend OP on.  Not by weakening the enablers to the point to where player must min-max and get the very best fighters and all of the fighter enablers at the cost of everything else just to be on par, and failure to do so results in a weak ship.

[J3R]

Fighter limits; limit the amount of fighters that can be deployed.
Sounds like the best option so far since it doesn't mess with play styles other than carrier spam (which would be ideal). For example; Thunders having 8k range is my saving grace early game to capture ships I normally couldn't reach in time. It is also fun having clutch moments when I catch a ship at the edge of retreat all game.

Limiting fighter amount/deployment lore/story-wise could have something to do with comms, considering the implications of organizing 50-100 fighters at once. However it could be implemented, limiting the amount of fighters that can be deployed per battle would directly fix fighter spam issues all round. If it's possible/realistic to implement.

AI problems
A targeting bonus or hullmod (like IPDAI but to destroy fighters) for cruisers and capitals akin to Advanced Countermeasures +50% damage to fighters could help these bigger ships to make a realistic dent in swarms and decrease derping.

Replacement rates
Decrease fighter replacement rate more rapidly with losses makes sense, but this would be a huge nerf to fighters all round, might make bombers more competitive or just ruin fighters for drawn out battles.

[Morrokain]

Morrokain, we are talking around in circles. As you clearly have given this a lot of thought and time in writing, I want to pay respect to that by reply back to your post. The effects you describe as of the suggestions is part and parcel of the intention and I am perfectly fine with those effects you describe.  I am perfectly fine with reducing the initial staying power of the first wave, as a way to prevent the warding off effect of fighter-type fighters and I'll it leave with that.

Thank you for the respect you have shown. I appreciate the dialogue. 

That is very fair, and though I still think that AI changes would help (they are difficult but so worth it to me) I won't debate that point any further either. I have said my peace on that.

If you want to cut down on fighter spam, increase the cost of crew. When every dead fighter = 200 credits, suddenly throwing a mess of interceptors at enemy fleets doesn't look so appealing.

There are obviously points that need addressing here. Specifically, you can still spam Sparks - but these are rare and difficult to find LPCs for. Also, Talons and other low-tech fighters inevitably die en masse. Perhaps low-tech fighter pilots come with a greater chance to be recovered after a battle (because of their redundant safety features, or whatever).

This also makes crew recovery hullmods & skills very relevant. They're usually sub-optimal, since you usually just want to stack the best fighter wings/offensive skills you can.

Has anyone suggested adding deployment costs to the carrier for each mounted fighter? That would go a long way towards cutting down on massed fighter spam while still making them useful.

These fall under broad economical changes upon the campaign layer. These won't really nerf carriers' effectiveness in combat- but will add an additional "tax" to use them economically. This was tried before in pre-.8 updates where replacing fighters would cost supplies. It... doesn't work out. It just makes carriers unattractive to use in general and favors minimal warship compositions throughout the vast majority of the game until late-stage challenges force "combat supremacy" tactics instead of credit conservation. It locks you into a certain playstyle until theoretical late-game.

I think lower fighter ranges across the board would help. Carriers would be in more danger, and fewer carriers would be able to attack the same target.

4k --> 3k for all 4k fighters, and make the Thunder be special in that is has 4k range (down from 8k).

Lower fighter ranges would do it, although I think your Thunder nerf is slightly too harsh - 5K would be fine, it's a light, fragile fighter.

This does bring nearly all carriers within the station-weapon envelope, however; a not-inconsiderable nerf given that smaller carriers are already less desirable. Off the top of my head, I think that's fine; most weapons don't have 1000/1200 range, the ones that do have notable drawbacks, and destroyer carriers regularly fly right up to stations and die as it is. Another reason to make larger, tougher carriers your striking arm.

It's worth testing to see if there are any unintended problems.

This is one stat (honestly perhaps the only one) that, in my experience, is a valid balancing mechanism as a stand-alone stat nerf to fighter spam that wouldn't nerf carriers' use of weaponry or cause over-use of bombers. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean it feels good since you'd think fighters would have long range like pilums, but it does get the job done to reduce spam capability without making fighters obsolete.

Just like weapon range matters a great deal- so too does fighter (sigh, did it again) strike craft range.

In the end, why is this true, though? Because, I think at least, the carrier is more vulnerable that way. Since weaponless carriers is a concern for me on its own, it makes sense that good battle tactics should result in the elimination of carriers.

I think that should be the overall design focus.

Fighter limits; limit the amount of fighters that can be deployed.
Sounds like the best option so far since it doesn't mess with play styles other than carrier spam (which would be ideal). For example; Thunders having 8k range is my saving grace early game to capture ships I normally couldn't reach in time. It is also fun having clutch moments when I catch a ship at the edge of retreat all game.

Limiting fighter amount/deployment lore/story-wise could have something to do with comms, considering the implications of organizing 50-100 fighters at once. However it could be implemented, limiting the amount of fighters that can be deployed per battle would directly fix fighter spam issues all round. If it's possible/realistic to implement.

I don't think that is technically nor conceptually easy to design. How would you determine what carriers deploy what fighters/bombers from your overall deployment if there was an artificial limit to the number of strike craft that can be deployed and your total deployment force exceeded that number?

AI problems
A targeting bonus or hullmod (like IPDAI but to destroy fighters) for cruisers and capitals akin to Advanced Countermeasures +50% damage to fighters could help these bigger ships to make a realistic dent in swarms and decrease derping.

This could certainly help. It would also help frigates better combat fighter strike craft threats.

[bobucles]

Hard cap limits are very difficult to do. Soft cap limits are similarly not so great. For example if each new squadron was somehow more expensive than the last, there will be a point where the costs outweigh the benefit. But it's hard to find a good mix for that. It may be good to look into mechanics that can successfully mitigate or actively punish swarm play.

For example I think the biggest trouble maker for swarms are the shielded fighters. They can easy individually regenerate endurance, and more strike craft will divide PD fire against more ships. At some point the fire gets extremely divided, and the shield regen ends up providing incredible returns. It may be worth reducing the shield regen rate dramatically, but at the same time maybe boosting the capacitors a bit. That way swarm shields have much less regen scaling and their endurance is more of a fixed quantity.

Area effect weapons in general are supremely effective against swarms of strike craft. Currently there are not many weapons that have particularly good AoE potential. For example the Devastator cannon sprays and prays across a huge portion of space, which can deal some damage to a lot of enemy craft. DOOM mines are also supremely effective, if you can aim them. More weapons of similar themes can place a huge hurt on enemy swarms in a natural way. Perhaps a weapon might chain some EMP damage that causes many craft to spin out of control. That would make them easy pickings.

The carrier fatigue system plays a huge role in the reason why fighters synergize with more fighters. Killing fighters begets killing even more fighters, as the carriers lose their ability to replenish numbers and will eventually be overwelmed. However the reverse is also true, where spamming fighters begets spamming even more fighters. A single big carrier will suffer massive fatigue if they lose 5 fighters at once, but 5 small carriers are perfectly fine with losing a single craft each. The steady trickle of singular losses will be easily recovered, and I suspect even more fighters will be built overall, compared to suffering a major loss of strike craft at once. But that'd need more testing before I'm really sure.

[Schwartz]

Re: crew nerfs. These would not work well. Sparks are among the best fighters in the game and they are crewless.

In endgame I field a number of carriers with mostly Sparks and some Dagger bombers. That's both OP efficient and crew efficient. Trying to tax fighters through OP and crew therefore hurts early game more than anything.

It is also respawn efficient because Sparks are tought little buggers with shields. Do we now make all fighters shieldless? This could actually work and is not an unreasonable change. Shield generators could be too large and unwieldy to be put on anything smaller than a frigate. But I don't see this get to the root of the problem.

What's the root of the problem? It is that with the fighters-as-weapons changeover, we saw an old system trying to fit into a new system. Fighters were not redesigned from the ground up but generally modified to fit by the same balancing formulas. As a result, I would say, currently fighters are:

- Too fast
- Too numerous
- Respawn too quickly
- Can be expensive
- OP costs increase 'fitness pressure' for carriers

I do not think they are too hard to kill.
_{Except for Diable Avionics..}

[Megas]

Fighters were not redesigned from the ground up but generally modified to fit by the same balancing formulas.

Same with carriers.  (I suspect even the new 0.8 newcomers might have been designed with the old system in mind.)  All of those weapon mounts that used to be filled up with big guns... mostly useless because fighters became the weapons and carriers need to specialize hard to make them good.

- OP costs increase 'fitness pressure' for carriers

This is my biggest gripe with fighters.  Make armed carriers good again!  If fighters need to be weakened so that carriers can brawl in a pinch and live to tell about it, so be it.

[bobucles]

It is also respawn efficient because Sparks are tought little buggers with shields. Do we now make all fighters shieldless? This could actually work and is not an unreasonable change. Shield generators could be too large and unwieldy to be put on anything smaller than a frigate. But I don't see this get to the root of the problem.

I don't think fighters need to be shieldless. The true power comes from the high recovery rates. For 8 OP a Spark squadron gets 250 venting worth of shield regen, the kind found on a frigate. Sparks obey the same hard flux rules as anything else but their sheer numbers and speed make them more capable of ducking away to regen any damage they take. The shield is supremely effective against HE weapons (few are anti fighter), but also has extremely high potential against all kinds of soft flux beam PD. It would take some hard data logging to figure out exactly how much damage they can really absorb, but it's pretty safe to say that Sparks can survive long term engagements in a way that other strike craft can not. Their quick shield recovery definitely factors into their durability and they'd not stack up nearly as well without it.

[Morrokain]

It is also respawn efficient because Sparks are tought little buggers with shields. Do we now make all fighters shieldless? This could actually work and is not an unreasonable change. Shield generators could be too large and unwieldy to be put on anything smaller than a frigate. But I don't see this get to the root of the problem.

I don't think fighters need to be shieldless. The true power comes from the high recovery rates. For 8 OP a Spark squadron gets 250 venting worth of shield regen, the kind found on a frigate. Sparks obey the same hard flux rules as anything else but their sheer numbers and speed make them more capable of ducking away to regen any damage they take. The shield is supremely effective against HE weapons (few are anti fighter), but also has extremely high potential against all kinds of soft flux beam PD. It would take some hard data logging to figure out exactly how much damage they can really absorb, but it's pretty safe to say that Sparks can survive long term engagements in a way that other strike craft can not. Their quick shield recovery definitely factors into their durability and they'd not stack up nearly as well without it.

Beat me to it lol.

- Can be expensive

Do you mean to buy upfront or to operate (crew loss)?

[Megas]

- Respawn too quickly

This is why Expanded Deck Crew hullmod is very good (faster recovery and slower rate drain).  It is practically an ITU (in importance) for carriers, a must-have.  It is pricey enough that carrier (except Legion, with difficulty) cannot afford ITU on top of that and support both fighters and guns.  With Expanded Deck Crew and pricey fighters (and no ITU), carrier is incentivized to go all-in for fighters.

[Schwartz]

I mean they can be expensive to fit onto a carrier. You can pump a lot of OP into it if you're looking to have a Heron with 2 bomber wings and a Broadsword escort. The OP costs encourage a certain way to play which involves more or less spreading out the expense over all your carriers. I.e. each of them gets a Talon, a Broadsword, a Dagger. It also makes the pool of viable fighters and carrier loadouts smaller.

I'm in agreement. Shields are not primarily the problem, but they do make it worse. If you have a few dozen swarming fighters that all have shields and high speed to hop in-and-out of PD range constantly, we have 1) fighters that never really get hurt, 2) an enemy ship that wastes flux on PD and 3) nullified missile defense.

Re: Expanded Deck Crew. I don't doubt it is good. What is bothering me is that I never use it and find it unnecessary. It is perfectly possible to build a fleet of 2 Moras and 2 Drovers and just overwhelm every single engagement with high-performance fighters that never run out of steam because the more fighters you have, the less fighters you lose.

[bobucles]

the more fighters you have, the less fighters you lose.

It's more like the slower you lose fighters, the more fighters you can afford to lose. Carrier fatigue does favor survivable squadrons far more than expendable ones. As long as the enemy lacks a critical damage rate to push replacement rates down, they're doomed. Shields take things to the next level because the more shield fighters you have, the more damage they can cover for each other and vent away, so the less fighters you lose, so your carriers never get fatigued, so any small losses are quickly replaced. One synergy is fine, but shields do create a double stacking synergy.

[Daynen]

I feel like part of the reason fighter spam gets so powerful is because point defense weapons don't.  Flak cannons and all their variants including the devastator suck, period.  They miss 90% of their rounds in my experience thanks to their HIGHLY random detonation range.  Other PD weapons have such painfully short range they can do nothing against any sort of real bombing run either.  Integrated point defense AI and some skills help with this...but beyond a point it's meaningless as well.  It's just an arms race and the fighters win.

My preferred anti-fighter weapon is the Locust.  One volley is almost guaranteed to wipe out half a dozen fighters, even more if they're unshielded.  Highly likely to clear a lot of torps and bombs on the way too.  Unfortunately they're missiles so you'll probably run dry before the carriers do...but that just means you need to get in there and get the job done before you're out of locusts.  An Atlas mkII makes a fantastic bugsprayer with extended racks and ECCM.  For 24 DP one atlas can kill a LOT of fighters very quickly...