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); In-development patch notes for Starsector 0.98a (2/8/25)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie  (Read 6074 times)

pigreko

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« on: September 12, 2012, 09:42:05 AM »

Hello
I know this is an old topic that have been widely discussed, but I've just another. Seeing how the refitting and repair of the craft is now explicit during a battle, an idea sparked in my feeble mind: carrier should permit the repair of every fighter squadrons lost in battle for a cost of supplies.

I'm talking about carriers giving 100% chance you would be able to repair any squadron deployed after a battle. This could be twisted along the line of "just a squadron for each flight deck" to just pump the effectiveness of the Astral or multiple carriers, and balance the mechanic of course.

This could be even not to big to implement, already the chance is there.

Hoping to have ALEX reply to this ;)
Logged

Faiter119

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2012, 10:18:19 AM »

Im pretty sure you cant repair something that isnt there. So if it's dead, it's dead.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7706
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2012, 10:20:58 AM »

Slightly off topic: This begs the question, if the carriers are so good at repairing fighters, whats to stop them from manufacturing them if you owned the blueprints? It would be a cool distinction between fighters and ships and give real power to carriers (they can retreat and come back a few days later with full wings).

On topic: I think it would make sense for flight decks to drastically increase the chance of repairing destroyed wings after battle if the fleet wins. In the cases where the fleet was retreating they probably wouldn't be able to comb the battlefield for fight hulks. I also think that the repair chance should be improved, but not 100%; sometimes wings get blown to very very small pieces.
Logged

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2012, 10:34:48 AM »

Agreed, it always struck me as a bit odd that you can replace an entire wing of Wasps if even one survives, but as soon as that last one dies it's pretty much gone for good.


Slightly OT: I've even considered suggesting that deployed fighters that get destroyed should always be able to be replaced (at the cost of supplies) as long as even one ship with a flight deck is on the field. As it is now, fighters are extremely easy to lose unless you deploy them en masse.

I worry that mass fighters would become the optimal strategy again, but that seems like much less of a risk now that they cost supplies to repair and replace. This way, it would be a powerful, but resource intensive, strategy. It would also give a reason to bring strike ships along to take out the carriers that are sending near-endless waves of fighters at you... the Astral would become a true force to be reckoned with.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2012, 10:36:24 AM by naufrago »
Logged

GUNINANRUNIN

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
  • Let's do it!
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2012, 11:07:22 AM »

Im pretty sure you cant repair something that isnt there. So if it's dead, it's dead.
How about when one Wasp comes back and then takes off with seven other fighters?  ;)
Logged
In short, if you throw a stone out of the rear window of your spaceship you will go faster.

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2012, 11:26:56 AM »

I don't get how this would improve anything. You can suggest to change things around all day, but what is actually better about fighters always repairing? I just see that making them awfully overpowered and not even worth killing.


For the lore concern, go into the lore thread, it's explained there how lost fighters get replaced.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7706
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2012, 11:39:35 AM »

Agreed, it always struck me as a bit odd that you can replace an entire wing of Wasps if even one survives, but as soon as that last one dies it's pretty much gone for good.


Slightly OT: I've even considered suggesting that deployed fighters that get destroyed should always be able to be replaced (at the cost of supplies) as long as even one ship with a flight deck is on the field. As it is now, fighters are extremely easy to lose unless you deploy them en masse.

I worry that mass fighters would become the optimal strategy again, but that seems like much less of a risk now that they cost supplies to repair and replace. This way, it would be a powerful, but resource intensive, strategy. It would also give a reason to bring strike ships along to take out the carriers that are sending near-endless waves of fighters at you... the Astral would become a true force to be reckoned with.
I don't think anything needs to be changed in combat - the current system works pretty well imo.

The issue at hand is that there is a large dissonance between in battle behavior, which is dictated by gameplay considerations for fighters and I do not think should change, and out of battle behavior. In battle we see cheap and easy replacement of fighters - out of battle we see fighters being very expensive and difficult to replace.

A 'lore' justification for resolving the dissonance could be that it is easier to manufacture from a working model - a 3d photocopy or whatever - then from a blueprint. That way in battle repairs, which are very fast, still rely on one fighter making it back. Out of battle manufacturing, which is slow, is still possible though.

[We've kind of moved away from the OP of increased repair rates and on to flight decks manufacturing fighters...]
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2012, 12:39:56 PM »

A 'lore' justification for resolving the dissonance could be that it is easier to manufacture from a working model - a 3d photocopy or whatever - then from a blueprint. That way in battle repairs, which are very fast, still rely on one fighter making it back. Out of battle manufacturing, which is slow, is still possible though.

As I get it, the lore explains it this way: What you physically buy  is not so much a fighter but a chip with data and license for manufacturing . You then either manufacture fighters yourself or buy pre-manufactured fighters from autofactories, which a stored and activated via that chip. If you loose all fighters that revokes your license, I guess.

Probably a sale concept from before the collapse, protected by now insurmountable DRM.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7706
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2012, 12:44:49 PM »

I'm not claiming the current lore doesn't work, just that lore to support the new gameplay is easily done.

At this stage I don't think lore matters at all, only gameplay.
Logged

pigreko

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2012, 02:39:50 PM »

The matter is: since you can repair and rebuild them in a carrier, as long as some husk remain, you should be able to rebuild the entire squadron. Something like the "terminator drone" self reconstruct module.

This chance to salvage and repair disabled fighters after combat should be a complementary to the ability of any carrier to repair them in combat and replenish their numbers. Lore wise, the increased chance of repair would be given by the carrier specialized systems and already dedicated manufacture. Simply as that.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2012, 03:13:57 PM »

Again, you just tell us how things should be in your opinion, without providing a reason or any arguments.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

pigreko

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2012, 04:18:20 PM »

why, I have given a reasonable reason for this suggestion: logic. Still we can say that:

fighter squadrons are a so easily destroyed I'd never think of going that way to build my fleet. Why bother with them? their cost does not much their usefulness, 2 warthogs cost like an onslaught, 2 wasps match an hammerhead, 3 broadswords even a Dominator.

All of them are easy countered by any fragmentation weapons, PD, or precise weaponry. and their dps is often negligible unless they can overwhelm a lone vessel with superior numbers.
Some are good at capturing points, unless agile frigates are deployed in the opposite fleet,  wich are bound to hunt down your weak (but fast) fighters or set them flee.

And lets not talk about emp...also known as wingbane.

They can be repaired but to do that you have also to field a carrier, which is a ship usually fragile and avoid of real combat meanings, with the exception of the Odyssey (still not a ship for close encounters)

I do not see the point of having them, really why bother with fighters? just for fun, because money and strategically wise they are a bad choice.
Logged

Hardlyjoking67

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
  • I'm a different kind of buddy.
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2012, 05:21:41 PM »

Not really, they are pretty good at distracting the enemy and given enough time, they can do a decent chunk of damage. So when an enemy is forced to chose between your ship or the fighters, you have a pretty distinct advantage. In addition, the performance of fighters is pretty reliant upon what rank troops you have in them. A green fighter wing sucks in comparison to an elite one. Finally, a carrier can actually be pretty effective. You can just throw them in the back of the field and give them a light escort. The only reason that a ship should get far enough at that point is either because you did something horribly wrong, you're losing badly, or the enemy is retreating in which case, the carrier can provide a pretty good finisher, depending on which one you use. Sure, a fighter wing isn't going to take down an Onslaught under normal circumstances, but your assertion that fighter wings are useless is in my opinion, incorrect. On top of this, the developers have taken great care to ensure that all of the different ships are relatively balanced. If fighters sucked as much as you are insinuating, the developers would have already made some kind of change to that game mechanic. Fighters have been in the game way too much for the developers not to have noticed an imbalance in favor of other ships.

BTW you're relatively new (i think) so welcome to the forums!  ;D
Logged

sirboomalot

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2012, 05:32:50 PM »

Fighters have uses, sure, but I think the point that pigreko was trying to make is that they are also very fragile, which limits how much people really want to use them. Personally I would never try to send even a giant swarm of fighters against a capital ship such as an onslaught, even if they are strong enough to destroy or distract it, due to how expensive it would be to make up for the lost fighters. A heavily damaged ship can be repaired with supplies, which are cheap and can be stored, but if a fighter wing gets completely wiped out, you not only have to find the station that sells them again, but you have to pay for the ships again, which is a bit more costly.

Of course, i'm just as new to the forums as pigreko, so what I'm saying might not mean much.
Logged

Hardlyjoking67

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
  • I'm a different kind of buddy.
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread about carriers, no cakes here, the cake is a lie
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2012, 06:13:31 PM »

Ok I guess I get what you're saying. The cost of fighters reduces their efficiency, but not their effectiveness. I think that was the point though, the developers didn't want people forming fighter armies, but rather balanced fleets. So in the end, I think that the current system is pretty functional.

PS Don't let anyone make you think that being new makes your opinions and ideas any less valid. People should and will call other people on
that kind of nonsense.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2