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 ... 9

Author Topic: Converted Hanger Rebalancing  (Read 7149 times)

TheLaughingDead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« on: February 03, 2023, 09:01:07 PM »

My reasoning is thus:

All ship sizes receive one fighter bay from Converted Hanger, (CH) irrespective of the hull size in question (destroyer, cruiser, or capital). However, Converted Hanger costs more on larger hull sizes.
Weapons cost the same across all hull sizes. For example, an HVD costs 13 OP regardless of whether I put it on a destroyer or a capital.
A fighter is a type of weapon, and not a type of hullmod. We know this because fighters cost the same regardless of whether you put them on a destroyer or a capital.
However, when we consider the higher cost of Converted Hangers for larger ships, this makes the same fighter cost more on a capital ship than on a destroyer.

Now, you might say that a destroyer has less OP than a capital, so even though it costs less for a destroyer to mount the same fighter, it renders the destroyer more useless in its other functions. However, a destroyer also costs less DP, so even though it might have a larger effect on a destroyer's functionality, it will hamper a smaller portion of DP than a capital.

I would even argue that regular weapons are more potent in the hands of a capital than in the hands of a destroyer, because a capital is better inclined to have the flux to use them. Likewise, a capital usually has other qualities (speed, staying power, etc) to put that weapon to greater use. All this even though the weapon costs the same amount of OP on both ships.
Two considerations that fighters are exempt from, because they don't cost the parent ship any flux, and they are less restricted by the qualities of the ship that uses them. Yet somehow, fighters cost more (via Converted Hangers) on a capital ship than on a destroyer, despite regular weapons costing the same amount.

I liken Converted Hangers to if ITU gave +20% range to all hull sizes, but costed more on larger hulls. Or if Salvage Gantry gave the same bonuses on all hull sizes, but costed more on larger hulls. And in the case of ITU, there is more reason for such a design decision, because a 20% range buff will give greater bonuses to large mounts than to small mounts! The disproportionate cost means that builds that use Converted Hangers will always favour smaller hulls, like destroyers. Rarely do I see or hear of Cruisers getting Converted Hangers. Never do I see or hear of capitals getting Converted Hangers. If Converted Hangers were changed so that it was more viable for larger hulls, that would open up build diversity.

What is the simple solution? Make Converted Hangers the same cost on all hull sizes. However, I can understand that hullmods are uniformly more expensive for larger hulls, and to break that would be disorienting to the player.
Another possibility is, of course, giving more hangers to larger hulls. But since fighters are such a dangerous weapon because of their range and lack of collision, this might result in too many fighters on the field at any given time, which could be a balancing issue. Not to mention, who wants to saturate their fighter skill bonuses with subpar fighters...
Perhaps we could give smaller hulls larger fighter penalties and larger hulls smaller fighter penalties? This way the same number of fighters are on the board at any given time, but fighters from a Shrike (P) won't be as effective as fighters from an Onslaught or a Conquest.
Logged

vladokapuh

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • Cabbage
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2023, 05:42:21 AM »

i would rather make the effect scale, since if you make it cost the same on all hulls, it will be an always pick on bigger ships
something like a CH xyphos adds so much utility there would rarely be a build that does not want it
Logged
Cabbage

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2023, 05:55:08 AM »

Maybe make the penalties smaller on bigger ships? By that I mean the increased cost of fighters and bombers stays the same, but the replacement rate and hp incrementally gets less penalized.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2023, 12:01:47 PM »

I was under the impression that CH on larger hulls have a reduced penalty on the Fighters but I can't seem to back that up anywhere. Or, though it would be a hidden stat, the Replacement Rate for larger hulls is significantly better. Let's say a Destroyer's CH RR is 50% of a "standard" hangar, Cruiser is 75%, and Capital has no penalty.



Logged

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2023, 01:20:18 PM »

I was under the impression that CH on larger hulls have a reduced penalty on the Fighters but I can't seem to back that up anywhere. Or, though it would be a hidden stat, the Replacement Rate for larger hulls is significantly better. Let's say a Destroyer's CH RR is 50% of a "standard" hangar, Cruiser is 75%, and Capital has no penalty.

I think it used to be, but isn't anymore.
Logged

IonDragonX

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2023, 05:04:02 PM »

I'd like to see it removed from Frigates in any case. Doesn't seem realistic.
'doh
« Last Edit: February 04, 2023, 08:59:12 PM by IonDragonX »
Logged

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2023, 07:48:43 PM »

TheLaughingDead you are right, the converted hangar is the weapon therefore same OP size for all hulls is a must.
Anyway, You are opening a can of worms  ???
The current status of fighters  is result of a decade development in small steps,  result is convoluted list of bonuses on the bonuses and diminish rules aplaying against each other. It is impossible for  human brain somehow  estimate performance.
On top, current status of all fighters regarding  battle performance DP vs dmg power is visibly lower than direct fire weapons  of the same OP price.

I would recommend make one patch, after this upcoming one,  only focus for fighter polishing.
ideas to make clean and polish:
- Make clear main difference of weapon  groups :
 direct fire weapons (plus recharge rockets) deliver constant dmg all fight VS limited ammo rockets deliver high peak  dmg for short (initial sequence) time VS fighters deliver declining dmg for whole fight (massive in the beginning then fade off)
- Make  performance of a fighters the  same regardless of type of bay origin. e.i. remove de-buff from Converted Hangar on speed&dmg_taken. Reason is simple - make it simple  ;) - when you have  about 20 types of  fighters and de-buff performance rule you get double!!! different fighters. It is  40 different performance results, be aware there are also players who  has other life then learn all this. It is much clear rule-set when you know that 2 Fury with Converted hangars and Longbows will make the same firepower like one Odyssey with LongBows.  Regarding fighters. Easy.
- Make clear naming convention:
call  all  small ships Fighters  in  general then differentiate: a] Interceptors b] Bomber c] Defender (drone-like fighter with zero  range)s. Current status where fighters are fighters but also some of them ale bombers is confusing.  On top a drone class is described as defending class ship but there other drones with no humans in it who free flight fighters but use bomber weapons, confuse level squared.  Make it simple!
Make OP price spread evenly AND in  pairs,  Re-factor OP cost (and performance) of fighters,  so player can easily switch type of fighter without  changing the whole ship setup. For  example :
One pair : b]  Pirana ; a] Thunder for 10 OP  >> good
second  pair proposal: b] Kopesh ; a] Warthog  for  12  OP
thirth  pair proposal: b] Cobra ; a] Longbow (change to Interceptor weapons  and rise OP price)  for 15  OP

and so on. Fighter type c] Defender dont have  to be available for each pair, but it must stick his price to some established pair. Keep idea of easy swap Fighter type  in the performance bracket.

- Make "Base_replacement_time" standard 10s for EVERY fighter. Hardcoded. There are  too many variables already on top with diminishing dynamics,  that  makes my  brain spin. (well there are two diminishing values, number of dead fighters and number of dead people,  which is crazy enough) Make it easy, give player simple information, you get a new fighter every 10s. If needed change total battle value, use other performance values. There are plenty.  HP, speed, weapon,  shield, armour, manoeuvrability,  .... Consider Fighter bay as a weapon with rate of fire once per 10seconds. Just make thinks simple.

- add toggle Fighter AI behaviour on  Ship refit screen - Weapons groups - each Fighter bay can toggle  3 doctrines  - Assault / Defence/ Close defence
Assault doctrine is current Longbow AI
Defence doctrine is current Mining drone AI
Close defencee is upcoming Sarrisa  AI
It means, ANY  Fighter can get ANY AI behaviour wich is in the game. It is up to player decide, if he wants his torpedo ffighters stay close or not.

General Idea is, give player Options to decide, easy controls, and predictable behaviour.
Give player options  to play with to try, offer clean naming  convention to prevent confuse, and dont overwhelm people by convoluted volume of numbers and maths  equations.   
« Last Edit: February 05, 2023, 01:08:37 AM by gG_pilot »
Logged

gG_pilot

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2023, 07:57:06 PM »

I cannot delete the double post
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2023, 08:16:35 PM »

I'd like to see it removed from Frigates in any case. Doesn't seem realistic.

It already can't be installed on frigates, I'm pretty sure!

I was under the impression that CH on larger hulls have a reduced penalty on the Fighters but I can't seem to back that up anywhere. Or, though it would be a hidden stat, the Replacement Rate for larger hulls is significantly better. Let's say a Destroyer's CH RR is 50% of a "standard" hangar, Cruiser is 75%, and Capital has no penalty.

I think it used to be, but isn't anymore.

Yep.


This is kinda half-hijacking this thread, but I've been thinking about Converted Hangar recently and how maybe pure OP is not the best balance lever for it. I mean, it works, but - how to best put it. It feels like for balance reasons, the OP cost (of the fighter, especially) is high - it has to be - and so the rest of the build is hollowed out by this a bit, when it's something like a Xyphos. This isn't the case when it's used to mount some cheaper interceptors such as Wasps, and that's viable, and in general this *does* work. It just feels like a "this hull is weak, so let's replace a good portion of its potential with a Xyphos wing to bring it up to par" kind of situation sometimes. (And the Buffalo Mk.II herd strategy, while highly amusing, is the distillation of this idea that the ship mainly becomes just a way to get the fighters on the field.)

What if Converted Hangar cost something like 5 OP across the board, the fighters had no penalties (increased cost or otherwise), but it increased the ship's deployment points by something like "+3 or 10%, whichever is higher"? It would be something that unquestionably augments the ship's capabilities, but "is this worth using on this ship" becomes a more interesting fleet-wide question. I'm still thinking on this, but the more I think about it, the more appealing it seems.
Logged

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2023, 08:17:58 PM »


Yep.


This is kinda half-hijacking this thread, but I've been thinking about Converted Hangar recently and how maybe pure OP is not the best balance lever for it. I mean, it works, but - how to best put it. It feels like for balance reasons, the OP cost (of the fighter, especially) is high - it has to be - and so the rest of the build is hollowed out by this a bit, when it's something like a Xyphos. This isn't the case when it's used to mount some cheaper interceptors such as Wasps, and that's viable, and in general this *does* work. It just feels like a "this hull is weak, so let's replace a good portion of its potential with a Xyphos wing to bring it up to par" kind of situation sometimes. (And the Buffalo Mk.II herd strategy, while highly amusing, is the distillation of this idea that the ship mainly becomes just a way to get the fighters on the field.)

What if Converted Hangar cost something like 5 OP across the board, the fighters had no penalties (increased cost or otherwise), but it increased the ship's deployment points by something like "+3 or 10%, whichever is higher"? It would be something that unquestionably augments the ship's capabilities, but "is this worth using on this ship" becomes a more interesting fleet-wide question. I'm still thinking on this, but the more I think about it, the more appealing it seems.
Sounds interesting!
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2023, 08:55:37 PM »

...

I was under the impression that CH on larger hulls have a reduced penalty on the Fighters but I can't seem to back that up anywhere. Or, though it would be a hidden stat, the Replacement Rate for larger hulls is significantly better. Let's say a Destroyer's CH RR is 50% of a "standard" hangar, Cruiser is 75%, and Capital has no penalty.

I think it used to be, but isn't anymore.

Yep.


This is kinda half-hijacking this thread, but I've been thinking about Converted Hangar recently and how maybe pure OP is not the best balance lever for it. I mean, it works, but - how to best put it. It feels like for balance reasons, the OP cost (of the fighter, especially) is high - it has to be - and so the rest of the build is hollowed out by this a bit, when it's something like a Xyphos. This isn't the case when it's used to mount some cheaper interceptors such as Wasps, and that's viable, and in general this *does* work. It just feels like a "this hull is weak, so let's replace a good portion of its potential with a Xyphos wing to bring it up to par" kind of situation sometimes. (And the Buffalo Mk.II herd strategy, while highly amusing, is the distillation of this idea that the ship mainly becomes just a way to get the fighters on the field.)

What if Converted Hangar cost something like 5 OP across the board, the fighters had no penalties (increased cost or otherwise), but it increased the ship's deployment points by something like "+3 or 10%, whichever is higher"? It would be something that unquestionably augments the ship's capabilities, but "is this worth using on this ship" becomes a more interesting fleet-wide question. I'm still thinking on this, but the more I think about it, the more appealing it seems.

Having a DP increase for converted hangar is an interesting idea and one that's been bandied about for a while for tournaments, though I don't think it's been done. In the early/mid stage of the game where the player isn't pushing up against the 240 DP limit I think this will increase the number of fighters that players are fielding by quite a bit. I can see myself both using Support fighters so as to not lose the 0 flux bonus, and interceptors to be able to order frigate assasinations.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2023, 08:58:04 PM »

Hmm - that's a good point. Maybe this ought to include both the supply cost and the deployment points, then, so it's not quite so automatic in the early game.
Logged

Candesce

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2023, 08:58:57 PM »

What if Converted Hangar cost something like 5 OP across the board, the fighters had no penalties (increased cost or otherwise), but it increased the ship's deployment points by something like "+3 or 10%, whichever is higher"? It would be something that unquestionably augments the ship's capabilities, but "is this worth using on this ship" becomes a more interesting fleet-wide question.
... Huh.

It'd make Converted Hanger relatively more attractive to destroyer wolfpacks, I think, since getting the full 160/200/240 DP captained while still sticking to ships that use your bonuses can be tricky. But that probably makes sense - a big heavy metal fleet is a fleet that should be bringing dedicated carriers.

I'd probably use it more frequently because of that, even past the early game - a fighter wing can provide very useful augmentations to a lot of destroyers, especially since they're a convenient way to mix tech styles on a single ship.
Logged

TheLaughingDead

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2023, 10:40:17 PM »

This is kinda half-hijacking this thread...

Hijacking a thread about Converted Hangar rebalancing by... proposing changes to rebalance Converted Hangars ;D

What if Converted Hangar cost something like 5 OP across the board, the fighters had no penalties (increased cost or otherwise), but it increased the ship's deployment points by something like "+3 or 10%, whichever is higher"? It would be something that unquestionably augments the ship's capabilities, but "is this worth using on this ship" becomes a more interesting fleet-wide question. I'm still thinking on this, but the more I think about it, the more appealing it seems.

This is a balance lever I never considered tweaking, because a hullmod changing DP costs would be unprecedented. However, taking this possibility into account really adds a lot of possibilities to the Balancing of Converted Hangars (and perhaps introduces possible balancing to other outlying hullmods such as SO).
I think that the overall idea of adding a flat/percentage increase to DP makes a lot of sense. Since weapon mounts and fighter hangars are usually already factored into DP cost, Converted Hangars is almost like attaching a hullmod that added another weapon mount and weapon, but without even the restrictions of flux capacity/dissipation (all without changing the DP cost of the ship).
My initial thoughts to the changes you propose are primarily:
  • Equal OP cost across the board allows for equal opportunity to mount fighters, be it capital or destroyer. This addresses the issue of fighters costing less OP on destroyers, despite having the same effect on the battlefield.
  • Additional (near-equal, in most cases costing 3-4 DP and rare cases 6) DP cost across the board means that that additional fighters will cost the same, be they mounted on capital or destroyer. This also serves to address the issue of fighters costing less DP on the battlefield, despite having the same effect on the battlefield.
So both of these changes serve to make the additional cost of fighters on the field equal in all respects. If you are adding a fighter, it will cost 5 OP and 3~4 DP, no matter what ship mounts the fighters in question. This would allow for fighters to be worth mounting on capitals and destroyers just as well.
I also find the idea of no additional cost to be really appealing. It allows for smaller ships to work with higher-cost fighters while still fulfilling the ship's base functionality.

Now, I think there could be some possible issues with removing all the debuffs to fighters mounted via Converted Hangar (besides my typo in spelling the name). Namely, where does that put dedicated carriers and battlecarriers? As an example: for a battlecarrier like the Mora, its ability to use pristine fighters is half the reason why it is fielded instead of dedicated combat ships. If suddenly the three bays of the Mora are able to be distributed across the rest of the fleet, then the Mora needs to make up for the 11 DP it isn't providing in fighters with its actual combat stats. I'm not sure the Mora really does that. I'd value its combat capabilities more along the lines of an Enforcer, or 9 DP (18 total).
With dedicated carriers this issue becomes even more pronounced. Even though their ship system improves the effectiveness of the fighters it is carrying, I'm not sure that it makes up for the difference in DP. If we consider the Heron as another example, the 11 DP paid for, essentially, a medium universal and some fighter buffs doesn't really seem worth it.
(Admittedly, I've felt for the past couple patches that:
-Dedicated carriers have cost a bit too much DP for what they provide
-Battlecarriers don't have enough OP to live up to their DP costs
So take from that what you will!)

To fix this, I'd argue you would need to value the DP increase closer to 5 DP, or +15% of ship's DP cost, whichever is higher. Alternatively, CH fighters could have debuffs that make them only worth 60% of a regular fighter (I'm valuing a fighter at about 5 DP here, so a 3 DP fighter would need to be worse in some respect). Though I suppose an argument could be made that dedicated carriers and battlecarriers can better coordinate fighter strikes and bomber runs, in which case a CH fighter could be, say, 80% as good as a base fighter without being a better trade in DP for efficacy.
Alternatively, buff all the carriers (I am definitely not biased :D)
Logged

Amazigh

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
    • View Profile
Re: Converted Hanger Rebalancing
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2023, 11:27:13 PM »

What if Converted Hangar cost something like 5 OP across the board, the fighters had no penalties (increased cost or otherwise), but it increased the ship's deployment points by something like "+3 or 10%, whichever is higher"?
I also really think this is a really neat idea, furthering some thoughts on it:

It does kind of negate the value of dedicated carriers, so a possible drawback to counter that:
- increased fighter replacement time for CH (and maybe also reduced fighter engagement range with CH?)
The idea here being that while you still get "full strength" fighters from CH, they aren't as flexible/sustainable as they would be from a proper carrier.

I feel like it might be an idea to increase the OP cost for bombers as they offer what are effectively "infinite missiles" and getting that for a (lower than current) cost with the current penalties removed, could be a bit of an issue on some ships. (this would also help to keep carriers relevant, as they'd be where you go for bombers.)

There's also the question of what'd be the s-mod bonus for this reworked CH, an extra wing, or redcued DP increase is an option, but don't feel quite right to me (and an extra wing would eat into the unique identity of vast hangar on the invictus)
If you implement the drawback to the CH wings i proposed above, then the s-mod bonus could be removing that.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9