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 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Fighter rework  (Read 4515 times)

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2020, 10:25:50 AM »

Devastators issue is that it starts auto firing at max range while the majority of the shells never make it to max range. Maybe just some better targeting logic could help it. Something like only firing at 1/2 or 2/3 range to increase the chance that shells detonate near the target. Or just true proximity fuse as someone else suggested. I don't think base stat changes are really the way to go here.

Also, RNG hit reg is a terrible idea in this case. Good games that have large RNG components always do so in way that lets the player reason about probabilities to make good decisions which is what makes games like XCOM interesting. RNG here is essentially just a DPS decrease in disguise with additional tilt factor. I don't see the point.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2020, 10:56:06 AM »

Re: Devastator
One time, I had the whole salvo hit an entire wing of fighters (because they overlapped perfectly over the turret), but it did not obliterate the wing, or if it did, took all twelve shots to do it.

Heavy Mortar is low-end (and short-ranged), and Mauler is low-powered and slow.  I do not want to use medium HE in a heavy mount, which leaves Hellbore, Devastator, or HAG (or Mjolnir if I build around it).  Hellbore is too slow against a mob of small targets, HAG (and Mjolnir) costs too much flux on anything that is not a Conquest, which leaves Devastator if I want anti-frigate/anti-destroyer on a low-tech ship.  Devastators main use is low flux cost HE that shoots more dakka than Hellbore.  Also, the random AoE from Devastator will nickel-and-dime small ships to death.  I see it often with my fleet on the receiving end when it fights battlestations or various capitals armed with Devastators.  Therefore, I do the same and watch the enemy's small ships die when they try to flank my Onslaught.
Logged

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2020, 11:52:27 AM »

Not dodge chance, but I wouldn't mind certain types of bulky and unwieldy weapons simply not being able to hit or damage fighter craft.  Not a gradient dodge chance, just a "either it always hits or it never does" sort of deal.  Justification being that the 2D battlefield we see is an abstraction, and the particularly bulky weapons aren't actually firing "at" them since they're too small and nimble to realistically have a prayer of success.  Possibly with an exception on drones which are straight-up intended as meatshields, but that'd add further complexity.

I find it pretty silly that one of the best anti-fighter weapons is in fact the huge and bulky Plasma Cannon, but only in player hands when one can manually fire into and vaporize an entire Astral bombing run (don't get me wrong, it's still way better than the 0.8 version of the weapon).  More relevantly, the pain of repeatedly watching stray Wasp drones wander into a Hellbore shot has lead me to permanently disavow that that weapon...
Logged

SaberCherry

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2020, 01:22:49 PM »

More relevantly, the pain of repeatedly watching stray Wasp drones wander into a Hellbore shot has lead me to permanently disavow that that weapon...
The solution there is to have some weapons vaporize the fighter and continue, like with Star Control 2 fighters.  Or, more generally, a rule where at >=100% overkill, non-missile weapons zap the fighter and keep going.  This would include noncontinuous beams like Tachyons.  So Broadswords could still block a Hellbore, but Talons couldn't.
Logged

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2020, 04:14:10 PM »

That would work, sure.  However, I would still prefer, thematically and gameplay-wise, that huge, slow, and bulky guns that one would never realistically train upon tiny and nimble fighter craft would just... not hit them.  I'd prefer having the fighters fly a bit under or over Hellbores and other improbable weapons, giving an illusion of physical depth to the battlefield.
Logged

SaberCherry

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2020, 04:31:41 PM »

Tiny nimble fighters don't have the armor and hull of a frigate.  This is a 2D game.  If there is no elevation accessible to the player, it would suck for the AI to take advantage of it.
Logged

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2020, 05:32:31 PM »

Tiny nimble fighters don't have the armor and hull of a frigate.  This is a 2D game.  If there is no elevation accessible to the player, it would suck for the AI to take advantage of it.
You can actually see the fighters climb up and consequently become larger on the screen when they take off from their carriers in-game, so "elevation" currently exists in a visual manner.  Players do have access to carriers and so their fighters would benefit from such a mechanic, as much as any other AI carrier & strike craft.

I don't really know what else to say.  Your solution is fine enough, but given the choice between your solution and just using the quasi-3D nature (that the game already has) to stop Hellbores/Plasma Cannons/Gauss Rifles/etc from accidentally insta-gibbing everything from Talons to Tridents 80% of the time (again, with potential exceptions of things intended as meat-shields like the Mining Drone), I'd happily choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Logged

duendeinexistente

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2020, 07:14:37 PM »

That would work, sure.  However, I would still prefer, thematically and gameplay-wise, that huge, slow, and bulky guns that one would never realistically train upon tiny and nimble fighter craft would just... not hit them.  I'd prefer having the fighters fly a bit under or over Hellbores and other improbable weapons, giving an illusion of physical depth to the battlefield.
I mean, a small ship gets in the way of a weapon meant to deal with frigates and above, it saying "haha no I'm too tiny for this :)" would be a turnoff. I want those things to vaporize anything in their path that's just not made to handle it.
You can use it quite well in your favor too, it's not exclusive to the AI. Shooting a heavy mortar in the way of a fighter  and one hit killing it is pretty good.
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2020, 08:06:06 PM »

That would work, sure.  However, I would still prefer, thematically and gameplay-wise, that huge, slow, and bulky guns that one would never realistically train upon tiny and nimble fighter craft would just... not hit them.  I'd prefer having the fighters fly a bit under or over Hellbores and other improbable weapons, giving an illusion of physical depth to the battlefield.
I mean, a small ship gets in the way of a weapon meant to deal with frigates and above, it saying "haha no I'm too tiny for this :)" would be a turnoff. I want those things to vaporize anything in their path that's just not made to handle it.
You can use it quite well in your favor too, it's not exclusive to the AI. Shooting a heavy mortar in the way of a fighter  and one hit killing it is pretty good.
I'll say it again: this way, people won't bother with dedicated PD weapons at all.
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

SaberCherry

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2020, 08:11:11 PM »

Tiny nimble fighters don't have the armor and hull of a frigate.  This is a 2D game.  If there is no elevation accessible to the player, it would suck for the AI to take advantage of it.
You can actually see the fighters climb up and consequently become larger on the screen when they take off from their carriers in-game, so "elevation" currently exists in a visual manner.  Players do have access to carriers and so their fighters would benefit from such a mechanic, as much as any other AI carrier & strike craft.

I don't really know what else to say.  Your solution is fine enough, but given the choice between your solution and just using the quasi-3D nature (that the game already has) to stop Hellbores/Plasma Cannons/Gauss Rifles/etc from accidentally insta-gibbing everything from Talons to Tridents 80% of the time (again, with potential exceptions of things intended as meat-shields like the Mining Drone), I'd happily choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

It's either 2D or not.  I liked the fact that Star Control 2 was 2D and had strict 2D rules.  I also liked the fact that Freelancer was 3D and had 3D rules.  But making a 2D game where you can't hurt something with a direct shot is problematic.  A 2D stage where 3D rules are randomly applied to make people miss clean shots is not going to make anyone happy.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2020, 11:25:46 PM »

I'll say it again: this way, people won't bother with dedicated PD weapons at all.
Do people not bother with dedicated PD weapons at all currently?

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2020, 12:02:07 AM »

That would work, sure.  However, I would still prefer, thematically and gameplay-wise, that huge, slow, and bulky guns that one would never realistically train upon tiny and nimble fighter craft would just... not hit them.  I'd prefer having the fighters fly a bit under or over Hellbores and other improbable weapons, giving an illusion of physical depth to the battlefield.
I mean, a small ship gets in the way of a weapon meant to deal with frigates and above, it saying "haha no I'm too tiny for this :)" would be a turnoff. I want those things to vaporize anything in their path that's just not made to handle it.
You can use it quite well in your favor too, it's not exclusive to the AI. Shooting a heavy mortar in the way of a fighter  and one hit killing it is pretty good.
Many weapons meant to deal with frigates and above would be unaffected by the change.  Chainguns, assault guns, all sorts of rapid-fire, swift tracking options would still exist and be perfectly effective against fighters.  It simply means there's another consideration in which weapons you take out when not every single sawed-off howitzer is an improvised AA gun (which, currently, often end up better than the real thing.)

Yes, I'm aware you can use it in your favor, and I do (the alternative being not using that to advantage, which is not really an alternative).  That does not mean I like it.  In fact, it's somewhat immersion breaking.  I don't feel like I'm in a space battle making a tricky shot on a fighter wing in a chaotic battlespace when I hit something with my Hellbore/Plasma Cannon/Gauss Rifle/etc, I feel like I'm rolling a bowling ball at a bunch of pins.

Using the wrong tool for the job is currently effective.  It really shouldn't be, and I don't find misusing the weapons that way to be fun, so I'd rather it wasn't.
Tiny nimble fighters don't have the armor and hull of a frigate.  This is a 2D game.  If there is no elevation accessible to the player, it would suck for the AI to take advantage of it.
You can actually see the fighters climb up and consequently become larger on the screen when they take off from their carriers in-game, so "elevation" currently exists in a visual manner.  Players do have access to carriers and so their fighters would benefit from such a mechanic, as much as any other AI carrier & strike craft.

I don't really know what else to say.  Your solution is fine enough, but given the choice between your solution and just using the quasi-3D nature (that the game already has) to stop Hellbores/Plasma Cannons/Gauss Rifles/etc from accidentally insta-gibbing everything from Talons to Tridents 80% of the time (again, with potential exceptions of things intended as meat-shields like the Mining Drone), I'd happily choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

It's either 2D or not.  I liked the fact that Star Control 2 was 2D and had strict 2D rules.  I also liked the fact that Freelancer was 3D and had 3D rules.  But making a 2D game where you can't hurt something with a direct shot is problematic.  A 2D stage where 3D rules are randomly applied to make people miss clean shots is not going to make anyone happy.
As stated before, I'm not a fan of the random chance suggestion as written.   A system with select cumbersome weapons bypass fighters to strike the vessel on the other side would not be a randomly applied 3D rule as you state.

("Strict 2D rules" aren't actually in-game.  Fighters do fly over ships in-game because they're not actually on the same plane, some missile weapons fly through friendly ships without friendly fire while others will punch a huge hole in them, and the large energy PD weapon can fire over other ships to intercept hostile targets on the other side)

I'll say it again: this way, people won't bother with dedicated PD weapons at all.
Do people not bother with dedicated PD weapons at all currently?
"At all" would be a bit of a stretch, but I've had two main flagships in my current playthrough and their plasma cannons have been doing much more heavy lifting in the PD role than the actual PD weapons.  At this point those dedicated PD guns are mostly there for eye candy.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2020, 07:52:52 PM »

Or fighters could just dodge like bullet hell players. Most fighters are small enough and have sufficient acceleration to do so, they simply don't try to.

Also PD != anti-fighter. PD is mostly anti-missile.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2020, 08:59:30 PM »

Yeah I use PD extensively, but as anti-missile. PD weapons are generally bad at killing fighters but that doesn't make them useless.

I also don't agree that weapons like the plasma cannon are actually amazing against fighters. Sure they shred bombers flying slowly in a straight line right at you, but fighters that are moving quickly in strange directions are not reliable to hit with PC, unless there are simply so many of them that it is hard to miss. PC also costs a ton of flux to fire which is not what you want from PD. Accurate beam weapons are much better in that scenario (agile fighters moving evasively) IMO.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter rework
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2020, 09:26:43 PM »

I also don't agree that weapons like the plasma cannon are actually amazing against fighters. Sure they shred bombers flying slowly in a straight line right at you, but fighters that are moving quickly in strange directions are not reliable to hit with PC, unless there are simply so many of them that it is hard to miss. PC also costs a ton of flux to fire which is not what you want from PD. Accurate beam weapons are much better in that scenario (agile fighters moving evasively) IMO.

Fighters are only a real threat to big ships when there is a lot of them. Which is exactly when Plasma is good. Beams and PD are for mop up against the few fighters that survived approach vs Plasma. Unless we are talking about 4xTL Paragon, which is comparable to Plasma against fighters.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 09:29:27 PM by TaLaR »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4