Print

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

[BaBosa]

It’s not going to have the speed or damage taken debuffs so thunders in particular will benefit there. The DP cost means that the fighter has to be worthwhile. You could think of it as the fighters being their own ships that cost DP to bring in like normal ships.
OP costs are also dramatically lower because there is no OP penalty for fighters and bombers.
The refit nerf will be significant in that spamming out fighters probably won’t be the best and instead they’ll probably be best to help finish off ships or act as supports so they won’t take as many shots.
Also I think if fighters are a big part of your end game fleet then they really should be from actual carriers and not converted hangers. That you do apparently mostly use CH shows that it is currently overpowered.

The old debuffs were almost completely irrelevant for thunders and talons - though the removal of the OP cost is big. In my opinion you’re grossly downplaying just how impactful the DP cost increase is. Also what made you think I mostly use CH? I almost never use CH, and when I do it’s specifically to toy with CH not to make a strong fleet. My concern is that CH will be even less viable to toy with.

The rare times I do make a CH fleet I’m actually more likely to use a carrier or two because that’s when a carrier has the most impact for its DP cost. But if using CH penalizes you both in OP cost and RR replenishment and refit time and bomber reload time AND makes your ship cost more DP, there’s no point in endgame CH unless it somehow is exceptionally powerful to warrant so many downsides.

Going back to the whole damage and top speed thing, that is less impactful of a downside than 50% slower RR recovery and refit time alone, unless you’re doing small battles. Again, the early game. In any large battle those 1.5x reductions are very potent because it’s very common for even 10 wings of fighters to get wiped out several times in the course of the battle. So that just leaves the OP changes, which is cool and that is what makes me hesitant to say CH is 100% dead besides as an even more niche tool with these changes.

What do you mean irrelevant? The extra damage taken means they died quicker and now fighters will have the ability to repair, fighters will die less make the replacement rate debuff less impactful. And thunders have like 400 speed so 25% debuff is 100 off that which is a lot.

The thing that makes CH different to other hullmods that make it deserve a DP cost is that it is effectively adding in a kinda universal weapon slot which can fundamentally improve a ship.
You can also see it as the fighters are their own ships with their own DP cost as I’ve mentioned. Compare Xyphos with an Omen. 4DP vs 6DP and you swap a EMP system, small missile and larger capacity for two EMP beams, replaceable ships and 28 OP cost. That sounds like it’s a pretty fair trade especially if the OP isn’t really needed.

Looking at the rest of your post, can I summarise it as; I just really like CH as it is and don’t want it to change. The points you’re making about the impacts of the change are kind of the intent of the changes. Alex said it was getting too ubiquitous when it should only be used in specific cases.
It sounds like you’d be better off just copying the files for CH now and then putting them into a mod so you can mess around with it when the change happens.

[PixiCode]

I mean exactly what I said, the overall impact of the two nerfs aren't really that important save for niche cases. Past a certain point of high speed having even more more top speed does not improve the survivability of any ship by much as of 0.95. Arbitrarily, for a wing I feel like that top speed breakpoint is like, 300? 275? You get 'diminishing returns' as far as survival goes is all I'm saying. Then for very slow ships that rely on being tanky, being faster or slower doesn't really impact them much either, unless it helps them catch up to an escaping foe. Now if it reduced maneuverability as well, that would start being an issue. Having CH means the ship is probably a 'battlecarrier' which means it's close to the battle which means the fighter being slower also doesn't really affect its time to the front lines in the grand scheme of things. The received damage is largely irrelevant for already fragile ships that rely on speed and maneuvering to survive but removing it does make slow, tanky wings (warthog) more viable. For a thunder it doesn't really impact its survivability by much, it'll still die in the same situations with or without the damage nerf.

You have to think about DP not from "How many ships are on the field" and instead "How much impact does X give per DP?" because that's how the game seems to be balanced. A 0.95 Hyperion is better than a scarab because, assuming both are built effectively, per DP that Hyperion is going to have a more notable impact than 2 scarabs. I picked scarab because they're probably? the closest comparison to hyperion, high DP frigate with minimal build variance due to limitations inherent to the hull.

Everything when viewed under the above scrutiny becomes an opportunity cost. I could get X, but it precludes getting Y and maybe Y is better. My point is that not only are you paying OP to get CH+a wing, you're now also paying DP, which affects the entire rest of your fleet's opportunity cost. Along with the other nerfs the proposed CH has, that's such a huge cost when you could instead save that DP and that OP for more vents to better use the weapons your ship already has, more caps so that your ship has a better aggression profile since it will back off to vent more slowly, more hullmods such as RFC or the new missile reloader or hardened shield, more expensive weapons like a LAC vs a railgun and more ships since you're saving on DP too.

You always give up something, even with smods in mind, when you take something else in your build. But no, I guess "I just really like CH as it is and don’t want it to change." If you just read my earlier posts, I don't think changing CH is a bad idea. I even said I don't know if it is worse, just that I see the potential for it to be worse. And no, I don't like playstyles being worse unless it's actually a problem. This is a single player game and most games are designed for fun. Balance is important to fun for me, but nerfing strategies too hard isn't usualy fun. Unless that strategy wasn't fun. I don't envy game design from that perspective hehe

I even gave a suggestion for CH: Just nerf the problem of escort wings being so ubiquitoisly taken by making CH-based escort craft cost a higher DP (or higher OP honestly) cost than other wings on CH. I like the idea of CH being changed so that more wings can be used when it is used. But it would be a shame if instead it just wound up being a complete nerf and disappointing to use.

edit: that said the ability for fighters that don't usually return to dock to actually repair on the battlemap is a pretty neat buff. That's not so much a CH buff as it is a fighter buff in general, but CH does benefit from it. Also I'm not against using higher DP costs as a balance metric for things like hullmods, I feel like the current iteration's too harsh though. Won't know for sure until i get to play with it. Like if we just removed the DP cost entirely and left the current CH iteration as-is it would be overpowered. This is because the increased OP cost of CH is largely what keeps it in check currently. Even though I feel like the RR/refit nerfs on new CH are potent, it's not nearly as potent as making them cost more OP. It does need strong downsides.

[Alex]

(Just wanted to say that the actual amount of DP added by CH is very much something I'll keep an eye on; 5 could well be too harsh but at least right now it seems like a reasonable starting point. I'll make a note to try using it more during playtesting.)

[BaBosa]

You made a lot of points. Some I agree with some I don’t. But the main one seems to be that you think the DP costs are too high right?

With that in mind, a few comparisons:
Hyperion is 15DP, a Scarab is 8DP and an Omen is 6DP.
Xyphos and longbow will be 4DP, Flash will be 3DP, broadsword and thunder will be 2DP and talon will be 1DP.

Is 2 ships with Xyphos worth having instead of another Scarab?
The answer we’re looking for is; it depends but generally no.

Because Converted Hangers should not be generally worthwhile. Like most hull mods, CH should be used when the synergy it provides with the rest of the build is worth while. Not because it’s just better.

[FooF]

I think it would be better to say that CH should not be optimal. It should have a significant cost associated and be an overall detriment for the ship to fulfill its primary role.

Back when I was pushing hard for the Eagle to have a flight deck, one of my primary arguments was that the Eagle was a jack of a all trades and a flight deck would cement that a bit more. However, even without having to pay for CH and fighter mark-up prices, adding a fighter wing ate into its overall OP budget, which it doesn’t have a ton of. You felt obligated to put in a fighter because the deck is there but sometimes the fighter detracted from its assault or long-range role.

And like Alex and I said, the +DP cost is a pretty powerful lever for this. 6 OP/+DP has a drastic effect on breakpoints and other ways of going about it have already been floated. +1 or 2 on a Destroyer is significant but less so on larger ships. Part of the balance will be “What’s 1 DP” worth?

[Fenrir]

Maybe make the penalties smaller on bigger ships? ...

This sounds very good to me, gameplay-wise it's a good idea, and narratively a larger ships would have a bigger cargo bay that can fit in better equipment in fighter production and end up with less defects.

[gG_pilot]

Thank you for courageous cut into fighters, for  reaching simplification and general better rule readability.
Make it so that the same fighter make the same combat performance regardless of mother ship is great move.
Althou, there is still space for simplification cutting.
All  the replenish numbers variations and modifiers is still too much. As  you can see  comments, even  veterans of game  can not imagine real  efficiency.
My suggestion  for better  premonition of outcome - make base replenish  time  of all the  fighters the same - 10s.
If a combat value tuning is needed,  then use other values like ship armour,  speed, OP, weapons, etc.
 

 

- does that mean that repairing at a station will be cheaper if I take the converted hangar mod off, then repair the ship to max CR, then put converted hangar back on?

Ah, crap! Hmm, that's a problem.

When you mount CH or a fighter into a ship, you add it as "empty". e.i. it has zero CR. It have to be "repaired" after mount in. Think about this :  you buy a 3D printer>> it  is  install hullmode. Then you need to set it  for  certain fighter model and tune for ship enviroment. >>  repair&maintence  for all  the work is worth 100% CR value of  CH.
-------
https://i.imgur.com/IhKIg8f.png
There is  still chatoic naming convention.
Word "fighters" is sometime used as general "small ship" but also sometime it means  "assault ship"  but not bomber and also sometime it means a bomber.
Make it clear.
Use word fighter as general small ship
Use word interceptor  as PD/assault small ship
Use word bomber  as rocket/bomb ship.

Best would be, make a clean split  that :
1. "The  bomber" could have just ONE weapon system. (Yes LongBow will be nerfed for sake of readability.)
2. "The interceptor"  could  have more weapon systems, but  only weapons which could attack other fighters. (Swarmer yes,  Harpoon/Sabot no)

Also for sake of simplicity  use the same debuff number for "replacement time 1,5x" and "40% of their  base   refit time" which is 1,4x. e.i.10% of difference of something which is very vague and hidden into other dynamic numbers makes it  unnecessary detailed and hard to remember. Therefore >>> These two numbers merge into one.
Then tooltip would also look more clean. It allow use simple sentence instead of a whole article defining terms inside the  terms.  See this :
"Increases fighter refit time,replacement and base refit time relaunch by 1,5x"

[SCC]

Interceptors are already a different category from regular fighters and bombers, and they prioritise PD duties over fighting other ships.

[gG_pilot]

Interceptors are already a different category from regular fighters and bombers, and they prioritise PD duties over fighting other ships.

https://i.imgur.com/IhKIg8f.png
 If it is  true, then  they are not mentioned  in the tooltip info. Does it means,  that interceptors do not get some CH debufffs ?

[Rusty Edge]

- does that mean that repairing at a station will be cheaper if I take the converted hangar mod off, then repair the ship to max CR, then put converted hangar back on?

Ah, crap! Hmm, that's a problem.

 Perhaps only Built in Converted hangar would add to DP, with no defects.
 While non built in C.H. is somewhat defective, with no modification to DP.

[BaBosa]

- does that mean that repairing at a station will be cheaper if I take the converted hangar mod off, then repair the ship to max CR, then put converted hangar back on?

Ah, crap! Hmm, that's a problem.

Couldn’t you just multiple CR by ship DP / (ship DP + fighter DP) when adding the fighters. If combat recovery cost are also increased then this would prevent any exploits.

[gG_pilot]

I  was  further thinking about CH price and pair
Converted hangar VS Converted Fighter Base

1. Converted Hangar at  the moment do not convert  anything.
It should eat cargo space and fuel space to convert them to something else.
Lets say price to convert  is 150cargo  space AND 50 fuel units.  Such logic rule has several advantages. 
a) It creates  feeling you  really convert something to  something  else
b) there  is no need for  artificial  rule,  "like  it is  available for cruiser  class and bigger".  Becouse of  space requirement,  It  can  be mounted to  large enough  destro like Buffalo, but  it prevents to fit into  compact direct  firing Cruiser  like Medusa  or Sunder. Which is interesting  logical  consequence.
c)  OP price is ZERO. You need only pay  money in dock  for work. Simply because you really convert the space,  convert Utility_value_of_the_Ship into  Combat_value _of_the_Ship  >>  therefore general  DP of the is the same. No  change  here. Nothing is consumed, only transformed.

2. As result of (article 1.) straight logic rule, Converted Fighter Base  is reverse process.
It transforms  build  in Combat_value to Utility_value
a)  it cost only  money  to install, ZERO  OP
b)  Convert Hangar  back into >> 150cargo  space AND 50 fuel units
c) Converted  Fighter  base can  be used to any Build_in_hangar. e.i. Legion or Astral can be turned into  nice  cargo ships.   

Why bother  ?
I belive it is better to  make rules which  create  feeling - that is the way it could work. Factorio feeling  -  when designers created world of changing one item  into another by  logical process which is  CONSISTENT. Make sure one piece of puzzle fits into another without artificial glue.

[FooF]

The logistics price could be completely side-stepped via extra transports and fuelers so you would be getting 100% combat upside with no downside beyond having to cart around an additional transport or two. Campaign effects do not have near the same value as in-combat effects and aren’t nearly as an effective lever to balance on.

I’d put CH on every ship I could if that was the case because the logistics hit is literally meaningless with one Industry skill point or a few extra Buffalo. That might be “realistic” but it’s not good for gameplay. The optimal choice become glaringly obvious.

[SCC]

If it is  true, then  they are not mentioned  in the tooltip info. Does it means,  that interceptors do not get some CH debufffs ?

No, they are still a type of fighters.

[gG_pilot]

I’d put CH on every ship I could if that was the case because the logistics hit is literally meaningless with one Industry skill point or a few extra Buffalo. That might be “realistic” but it’s not good for gameplay. The optimal choice become glaringly obvious.

Empty CH has zero combat value.
For fighter you  pay DP. For example, 2 DP for LongBow fighter.
On top, due to hullmode debuff fighter has 50% slower replenish&rearm.
On top, you have to pay another cargo ship.
Enlighten me how this can be described as "glaringly obvious optimal choice for every ship"