Print

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

[Darloth]

There are some valid points as to why it would add extra micromanagement and such, but overall I like the idea!

You can mitigate the extra micro by having fighters that don't have enough crew pull from the standard crew pool and converting those into fighter pilots after the battle, if they survive.  We also already have the "experienced crew to the front of the list" mechanic for saying which ships you'd like to get the better crew if need be, and while it would add extra micromanagement if you're running a really fighter heavy fleet, that extra detail only occurs IF you're running a fighter heavy fleet, which is exactly when you typically want extra details about and involving fighters!

People running a single converted hanger could basically ignore it if they wanted (it would pull from their crew pool and they'd get better until they died keep doing so if they didn't), people who don't have fighters yet wouldn't even SEE the mechanic, so no extra learning difficulty in the very first stage of the game... I think it could work well.

[Salter]

Disagree. Drone fighters are v. good, but they lack the range of options available to the crewed ones so they're never a "no-brainer" choice imo, as there are roles they simply cannot fill.

And in addition you'd possibly get people ignoring crewed fighters entirely just to avoid doing any of the micro for this, which might be a "no-brainer" choice for those who dislike such things.

tbh Drone's dont really need much to begin with. Sparks basically the best all-round interceptor in the game. Lux is basically the best escort fighter with its speed being very close to ships like the Dagger, Cobra & Longbow. I am somewhat biased towards high-tech though so take it as you will.

If anything though mixing human pilots and AI pilots as a manageable resource in the background sounds like a nightmare to program.

As for fighters, if there is a no-brainer option, it is Broadswords.  They are very durable and effective compared to other fighters of their cost.  My goto midgrade choices for fighters on carriers tend to be two Broadswords and a Claw, or Broadsword, Claw, and Talon.

Im surprised anyone would go for fighters without shields. Broadswords feel a bit too weak considering your crew casualties can spike significantly if you encounter any real PD resistance.

That said if I run midline carriers (2 Heron's & a Drover), I typically give the Heron's a compliment of Lux Heavy Fighters with 2 dagger wings & Longbows on the Drover. If I run high-tech, I run an Astral with 2 Tempest's and give the astral 3 Cobra's, a Longbow & 2 Lux Heavy Fighters.

Also it avoids posts like this where people want to introduce yet another game mechanic to satisfy all 10 players who enjoy crew tetris.

Lmao #2 at "drones are no-brainers". Like what's even the argument there. Drones are either PD assistance or super specialised bombers (only one drone). What about all other roles? Only drones I ever use are Sparks and Wasps when I don't have Sparks yet. I'd hardly call that a no brainer.

You underestimate how many people actually like to do that cause they played the SIMs as kids. tbh I think drones should start with Elite Veterancy, cause the drones are the strongest in the game. Drones make better fighter pilots because they arent subject to phyisical limitations due to G-forces, failing life support systems or even the cockpit taking a few shots and probably come with a bunch of powerful sensors and targeting units as a result. They should be terrifying to deal with and strong in the players hands as a result.

[FooF]

The question I have is how does this add value without adding unnecessary complexity? How is this any different than making fighter speed/damage/accuracy etc. tied to a skill? Same end result: fighters are better. The current fleet wide buffs to fighters are basically achieving the same thing without crew Tetris.

I get the desire for progression and keeping crew alive but unfortunately, it just complicates things without a lot of upside.

If I were to do something like this, it would be to have a pilot crew-type (no veterancy) that, when you have sufficient numbers to meet some flight deck requirement (based on hull type), you get a flat “Elite” fighter buff. For example, a Condor needs 20 pilots per deck. Thus, 40 pilots are added to some global number you need to have Elite fighters. You only have 39? No bonus. Meanwhile, a Drover only needs 10 pilots per deck, so the pilot burden is less. This gives each carrier a few more balance levers to pull. Extended Deck Crew increases replacement rate but requires more pilots/bay. “Automated Deck Crew” lowers the pilot requirement but is mutually exclusive with EDC. Skills modify the Elite bonus and lower the global pilot requirement value.

[Amoebka]

Im surprised anyone would go for fighters without shields. Broadswords feel a bit too weak considering your crew casualties can spike significantly if you encounter any real PD resistance.

You are seriously overestimating fighter shields and underestimating armor/hull. Broadswords are a lot more durable than even Lux, and Sparks might as well be paper. They have 150 flux capacity. A single machine gun volley or 2 seconds of a single basic PD laser overload them, which is even worse than having armor melted because they stop shooting.
Having to think about crew casualties might be psychologically less comfortable, but it hardly matters at all in the game. Crewed fighters tend to be much better than drones.

[Salter]

The question I have is how does this add value without adding unnecessary complexity? How is this any different than making fighter speed/damage/accuracy etc. tied to a skill? Same end result: fighters are better. The current fleet wide buffs to fighters are basically achieving the same thing without crew Tetris.

I get the desire for progression and keeping crew alive but unfortunately, it just complicates things without a lot of upside.

To be fair, there is an argument to be made the game isnt complex enough. Colony's basically run themselves. Ships don't really need to be played around with once you know what works. A crew management mechanic would give something for the player to do whenever they get back to port and would probably be relevant throughout the whole game rather than something that comes in stages like 'early/mid/late game'.

You are seriously overestimating fighter shields and underestimating armor/hull. Broadswords are a lot more durable than even Lux, and Sparks might as well be paper. They have 150 flux capacity. A single machine gun volley or 2 seconds of a single basic PD laser overload them, which is even worse than having armor melted because they stop shooting.

Having to think about crew casualties might be psychologically less comfortable, but it hardly matters at all in the game. Crewed fighters tend to be much better than drones.

Fighters benefit from officer skills since they are an extension of the ship, so a full contingent of sparks can turn into a mean little array of angry hornets that can drown lesser fighter wings and frigates in lasers, if given the appropriate officer & skills. That doesn't mean a fleet of 30 sparks is gonna down a conquest if an officer has EWM & Gunnery Implants, but you can do alot with a skilled up fleet of sparks.

[Grievous69]

You underestimate how many people actually like to do that cause they played the SIMs as kids.

Ok so 11, not 10. Still, the game is primarily an action rpg with some interactions in the open world. It does not try to be a sim, so there's no need to go that route.

You must be joking saying the game is not complex enough. It's already super niche lmao come on man.

[Amoebka]

You can do even more with a skilled up fleet of human fighters. I used to be a person who put sparks on everything myself, but when I stopped to think about it, I realized the only reason I did was because I didn't want to think about the alternatives. Sparks are relatively decent against anything, cheap, and you don't have to think about crew logistics. It's tempting to just put them on everything and call it a day, but it's suboptimal.

[Salter]

Ok so 11, not 10. Still, the game is primarily an action rpg with some interactions in the open world. It does not try to be a sim, so there's no need to go that route.

You must be joking saying the game is not complex enough. It's already super niche lmao come on man.

On the contrary, I can point out down to a T how the games not complex, and thats because of how easy it is to get ahold of money. Faction commissions can spoil players with money, running some smuggling for a while can also net the player a few million in credits pretty easily and colonys can produce alot of money. Once you solve your money problems, you dont really have problems beyond assembling a fleet and picking character skills and thats not something that requires alot of thought once you figure out what works for your chosen ships and strategy.

You solve your money problems in any number of ways that the game gives you and alot of the complexity becomes non-existent. You end up just exploring the system and destroying the occasional raider base and protecting worlds from faction raids. That's not something I would call complexity, more like monotonous upkeep.

You can do even more with a skilled up fleet of human fighters. I used to be a person who put sparks on everything myself, but when I stopped to think about it, I realized the only reason I did was because I didn't want to think about the alternatives. Sparks are relatively decent against anything, cheap, and you don't have to think about crew logistics. It's tempting to just put them on everything and call it a day, but it's suboptimal.

Fair point. Outside a few meme ship builds, ive not really found them to be of much use either, or at least they dont work outside the hands of a few ships. They really are just afterthought to add into fleets who dont have dedicated fighter skills but need something fast and decent to deploy.

[Grievous69]

My man literally narrowed down the whole game to a "earn money" simulator. I don't know if I should laugh at this honestly.

[Salter]

My man literally narrowed down the whole game to a "earn money" simulator. I don't know if I should laugh at this honestly.

Haha, such a comedian. If only you had good jokes.

[Megas]

I tried other cheap (10 OP or less) fighters, but aside from maybe Mining Pods, they are not as durable.  Broadswords are common and durable for their OP cost.

Sparks are not what they used to be.  Their high-delay burst PD is a pale imitation of the original burst PD (which they used to have).  The former feels more like a blue PD laser or tactical laser than real burst PD.  They are useful for automated ships that cannot use any better cheap option.  I use Sparks when I want something like Wasps but more durable.  (Wasps are too fragile.)

[Salter]

Wasps are really fragile yeah. I dont think their mines do much either aside from being target practice for the AI.

[Candesce]

Im surprised anyone would go for fighters without shields. Broadswords feel a bit too weak considering your crew casualties can spike significantly if you encounter any real PD resistance.

I've found Broadswords an excellent choice when I'm using a Legion XIV as my fleet's primary hammer. (Not rare, given the guaranteed wrecks.)

They're cheap and durable PD that operates even if I need to overload or vent, and I can sic them on targets when I need flares suppressing PD nets to get torpedoes through. Or if I just want a stupid harassing frigate to go away.

What really causes me crew casualties are Vanguards etc. Ships that are high-impact but unfortunately likely to get themselves blown up. Those I stick Blast Doors on, in addition to Reinforced Bulkheads.

I'm also fond of the Gladius - they're not as tough or numerous as the Broadswords, but they're a lot faster, and their wings are actually significantly higher sustained firepower because they've much higher flux regeneration.

Of course, neither fighter does well if you throw them at the heart of the enemy fleet. I don't think any fighter does.

[JasonArgo]

Fighters pilots as second marines is fantastic. It just duplicates existing game mechanics and creates more depth and unic charm of Starsector.
What can depends on pilots exp?
Maybe reaction delay like 0,3/0,2/0,1 sec?
Boost to speed, maneuver, fire rate, damage?
Chance of malfunction?
Green pilots gets only 50% of officer skills up to 110-120% for aces?

[Inventor Raccoon]

If I remember correctly one valid point made by Alex is that the existence and non-viability of Recovery Shuttles kind of makes a statement in its own right - you can save the lives of your fighter pilots with great effectiveness, at just a small cost in combat effectiveness... but if you only see your crew as the human beings they are, and not as the disposable resource they are mechanically.

That said, fighter pilot experience would be neat but it'd unfortunately be likely to fall into the same pits as the old crew experience system did (since, well, it's basically the same thing but without applying to ships), whereas marines are mostly just a resource that can become more effective per-marine as it's used