Jump to content

Welcome to the Forum!

The best place to exchange builds and ideas! Vote for the best ideas and suggestions here.

Join the Avorion Discord!

Connect with other passionate players and talk about the latest news.
Discord

DLC Avorion Into the Rift Out Now!

Now available on Steam!
Steam
  • 5

Reduce Fighter costs - They cannot survive.


Luminaire
 Share

Suggestion

Now that you've managed to make combat fighters unusable, reduce their crafting time and resource costs..

 

In all the years that i've been with avorion, even back when the fighters did not have dodges, they were always usable, in some form. It was possible. I've never complained about their fragility and costs, because it was always possible to utilize them in battle in some way. They could survive if used right.

 

Now though, with the fact that PDC is a dime a dozen on enemies, and enemy speeds makes it so even ranged fighters are put into PDC fire before long, along with 2 hours of crafting + 1.3mil resources being wiped out in 10 seconds from a single anti-fighter flak cannon, there is no longer a justification for these costs. Fighters now officially die faster and easier than they ever have in the past. They are useless, a waste of time and resources to build, and an infuriating resource drain.

 

I have always loved carriers/fighters, and now they only thing they care useful for is mining/salvaging.. What a tragedy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Hmm. I haven't messed with fighters in awhile, but what your saying about them being useless makes sense.  I do remember them being very expensive and time consuming to make.  I see those PDC ships all the time too so its not like they are uncommon.  I'd say don't make fighters cheaper, but make them overall better.  More HP, increased flight speed and the ability to strafe and fire at their targets at their optimal range while orbiting.  Always seemed a bit silly to have a long range fighter charge straight at the enemy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi,

 

why don't you simply reduce the costs for the fighters yourself? Simply take a look at this post: https://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,5997.msg31493.html#msg31493

 

Because the better solution is for the devs to fix the problem, rather than relying on the modding community to?

Mods are never a solution to core balance, and while i'm a supporter of mods, I will not support encouragement that developers should not fix their broken game features, just because others do for them.

 

Still though, thankyou for the suggestion. Until this is fixed, this might be the only solution.

 

Hmm. I haven't messed with fighters in awhile, but what your saying about them being useless makes sense.  I do remember them being very expensive and time consuming to make.  I see those PDC ships all the time too so its not like they are uncommon.  I'd say don't make fighters cheaper, but make them overall better.  More HP, increased flight speed and the ability to strafe and fire at their targets at their optimal range while orbiting.  Always seemed a bit silly to have a long range fighter charge straight at the enemy

 

Fighter durability has been a "fight" for years in avorion, and while it improved for a time significantly, it's in the end all been for nothing, left with a result of them being worse off. Even if they are more durable, it is not going to matter, because once they are under fire by a pdc, or being hit by flak, they are locked into a "dodge/evade" mode until they die. Doesn't matter if they can take 3 hits, or 6, they will die and there's nothing you can do about it. They won't dock,  and even if they tried, they'd be too slow to. Recalling them is useless because they are too slow to travel several km away at 600~m/s top speed, or will just dodge in place until they run out of dodges and then get blown up, rather than dock.

 

I'm all for a solution that works. I don't mind the fighters continuing to have such costs and time to craft if another adjustment made it work again. Perhaps the fight just isn't over yet, but at this point in time, it's worse than it's ever been. I have been with avorion since the beginning, and have started anew countless times over, almost every time there's a new major change in functionality. While there have been some changes I didn't necessarily agree with, they have never upset me as much as this has.  Even when fighters and captains felt like you were trying to herd a litter of wild cats, it was still more enjoyable than this, because it wasn't just a blatant waste of time and resources with no yield. I almost just don't want to play anymore until this is fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi,

 

Hi,

 

why don't you simply reduce the costs for the fighters yourself? Simply take a look at this post: https://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,5997.msg31493.html#msg31493

 

Because the better solution is for the devs to fix the problem, rather than relying on the modding community to?

Mods are never a solution to core balance, and while i'm a supporter of mods, I will not support encouragement that developers should not fix their broken game features, just because others do for them.

 

Still though, thankyou for the suggestion. Until this is fixed, this might be the only solution.

you just said: "Fighters are broken, fix them!". Modding those files, you can optimize fighters (costs and stats) and suggest some changes (based on your optimization).

There’s certainly no reason for these small things to cost as much or more as the ships that launch them....

 

They could still use other love as well, but the production costs and time are extremely high.

The costs always depended on the turret used, PDC-Fighters are cheap as hell. But it's also true, that fighters with some DPS are expensive, as far as I remember some of my fighters needed 20 to 60k materials each - you could build some nice 5-slot ships for the same price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi,

you just said: "Fighters are broken, fix them!". Modding those files, you can optimize fighters (costs and stats) and suggest some changes (based on your optimization).

 

That's a very constructive and positive way to put it,  however, i don't play avorion as a second job. It's not my responsibility nor desire to have to fix avorion myself. I just want to play it.

 

I have given a directional solution.  If they don't want to reduce the costs, then they can figure something else out to make fighters more functional. It does not matter if it's reduced costs, more durability, adjustments in speed, dodges, docking, or something else completely abstract, I'm just pointing out that currently there is an issue with fighters not being a functional feature.

 

Besides. I know how this developer works. He doesn't like adopting the specific details of people's offerings. He takes the overall concept and morphs it into something else completely. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't fully fix the issue, but it seems to mostly work out in the end either way. So in that, i have no doubt they are capable of figuring something out with a simple "Fighters ain't workin, please make right"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi,

 

...So in that, i have no doubt they are capable of figuring something out with a simple "Fighters ain't workin, please make right"

this is the suggestions-section of the forums... Where's the suggestion in "Fighters ain't workin, please make right"?

 

Well, one could also think about more changes/suggestions... We've got different ship-classes in Avorion, Crew- and Cargo-Shuttles, why don't we have fighter-classes? We could talk about something like Interceptors, Allrounders and Bombers, all with different bonusses to costs, size, speed and dodges (for example).

 

What would you think about that suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

you could build some nice 5-slot ships for the same price.

 

Exactly.  Why should a fighter cost as much as something that big?

 

We've got different ship-classes in Avorion, Crew- and Cargo-Shuttles, why don't we have fighter-classes? We could talk about something like Interceptors, Allrounders and Bombers, all with different bonusses to costs, size, speed and dodges (for example).

 

I have issues with the current point system they use in part because it's hard to make distinct fighter classes unless you purposely use a lower grade turret or don't spend all of your points.  Making distinct fighter classes that adjust the base stats accordingly could be a step in the right direction there, but I don't think it addresses the OPs main concerns.

 

this is the suggestions-section of the forums... Where's the suggestion in "Fighters ain't workin, please make right"?

 

While this is the "suggestion" forum, the game's "feedback" forum is within the beta section, which kind of makes it feel like it should be used for feedback on the current beta and the things they are working on in that beta, not the game in general.  That said, the OP did make a suggestion... reduce their costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hmm. I haven't messed with fighters in awhile, but what your saying about them being useless makes sense.  I do remember them being very expensive and time consuming to make.  I see those PDC ships all the time too so its not like they are uncommon.  I'd say don't make fighters cheaper, but make them overall better.  More HP, increased flight speed and the ability to strafe and fire at their targets at their optimal range while orbiting.  Always seemed a bit silly to have a long range fighter charge straight at the enemy

 

Fighter durability has been a "fight" for years in avorion, and while it improved for a time significantly, it's in the end all been for nothing, left with a result of them being worse off. Even if they are more durable, it is not going to matter, because once they are under fire by a pdc, or being hit by flak, they are locked into a "dodge/evade" mode until they die. Doesn't matter if they can take 3 hits, or 6, they will die and there's nothing you can do about it. They won't dock,  and even if they tried, they'd be too slow to. Recalling them is useless because they are too slow to travel several km away at 600~m/s top speed, or will just dodge in place until they run out of dodges and then get blown up, rather than dock.

 

I'm all for a solution that works. I don't mind the fighters continuing to have such costs and time to craft if another adjustment made it work again. Perhaps the fight just isn't over yet, but at this point in time, it's worse than it's ever been. I have been with avorion since the beginning, and have started anew countless times over, almost every time there's a new major change in functionality. While there have been some changes I didn't necessarily agree with, they have never upset me as much as this has.  Even when fighters and captains felt like you were trying to herd a litter of wild cats, it was still more enjoyable than this, because it wasn't just a blatant waste of time and resources with no yield. I almost just don't want to play anymore until this is fixed.

 

The fact that they are unresponsive while dodging all the time seems more like an issue with how the dodging is done.  IMO there should be a short cooldown between dodges giving the ship time to hit them briefly before the next dodge.  This is where the higher HP of the fighters comes into play.  Of course it depends on how much damage the turrets are pumping out.  If the fighters speed is also changed and they also orbit at their optimal range, that will also provide a sort of "built in dodge" with the orbiting and higher speed. 

 

In fact, when building a fighter, it would be amazing if there was an option to toggle between orbit, stationary, and the current "dive bomb" behavior.  When orbiting, the overall speed would be reduced by 50% just to prevent really fast builds from being unhittable due to turret tracking.  The optimal orbit range would be... lets say 75% of the max range.  Stationary is kind of like a sentry mode.  They deploy and stick by your ship and snipe at enemies in range.

 

But 100% their speed needs to be increased.  You could keep the base speed so you can still make slow bomber type fighters, but every level you put into speed should go up significantly.  Fighters are super easy to outrun in most ships built, so giving fighters the ability to travel faster would actually make short range fighters useful (and raw ore mining fighters really effective).  Maybe something along the lines of a top speed of 2000m/s? 

 

Again, I'm not an expert in fighters, but I have messed with them quite a bit in the past.  I just found their versitility and ease to use rather meh. (apart from mining fighters)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi,

 

this is the suggestions-section of the forums... Where's the suggestion in "Fighters ain't workin, please make right"?

 

While this is the "suggestion" forum, the game's "feedback" forum is within the beta section, which kind of makes it feel like it should be used for feedback on the current beta and the things they are working on in that beta, not the game in general.  That said, the OP did make a suggestion... reduce their costs.

"Fighters ain't working..." sounds like a Bug-Report to me... :P

 

And BTW:

Now that you've managed to make combat fighters unusable, reduce their crafting time and resource costs..

"unusable"... Would the same fighter be more useful, if it was a little cheaper?

 

We've got different ship-classes in Avorion, Crew- and Cargo-Shuttles, why don't we have fighter-classes? We could talk about something like Interceptors, Allrounders and Bombers, all with different bonusses to costs, size, speed and dodges (for example).

 

I have issues with the current point system they use in part because it's hard to make distinct fighter classes unless you purposely use a lower grade turret or don't spend all of your points.  Making distinct fighter classes that adjust the base stats accordingly could be a step in the right direction there, but I don't think it addresses the OPs main concerns.

Currently there are point-bonusses depending on the material of the turret, we might be able to get the same for fighter-classes.

 

For example: An Interceptor could get a few bonus-points speed, size, maneuverability and "free dodges". Requirements could be "Used turret: PDC/PDL or Anti-Fighter", so these fighters have got low DPS and the costs are low.

 

A Bomber could have minimum size 2, it gets bonusses to HP (Shields?) and reduced costs.

 

Well, the Allrounders should have a size somewhere beween 1 and 2... Bonusses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

"Fighters ain't working..." sounds like a Bug-Report to me... :P

 

Strictly speaking, it's not a bug cause it's a balance issue.

 

"unusable"... Would the same fighter be more useful, if it was a little cheaper?

 

If they were significantly cheaper, it would offset how quickly they die (which is why they're unusable).  However, there are still pilots to account for, so they shouldn't be allowed to die too often, either.

 

Currently there are point-bonusses depending on the material of the turret, we might be able to get the same for fighter-classes.

 

For example: An Interceptor could get a few bonus-points speed, size, maneuverability and "free dodges". Requirements could be "Used turret: PDC/PDL or Flak", so these fighters have got low DPS and the costs are low.

 

A Bomber could have minimum size 2, it gets bonusses to HP (Shields?) and reduced costs.

 

Well, the Allrounders should have a size somewhere beween 1 and 2... Bonusses?

 

Yup, that was kind of in the area that I was thinking of for that, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think giving orders for fighters to attack at point blank range, optimal range, max range, and orbit shouldn't be built into the fighter, but should be something you can change when needed to use different tactics when fighting different ships. But they also need to make it so you can actually make fleets in the game and assign a flag ship for a fleet and even be able to set orders and formations for fleets.

But I do think fighter cost should be lowered and HP increased.

As for fighters getting hit, I think it should depend more on the fighter's maneuverability, pilot's skill and speed vs the weapons type, accuracy, rate of fire and turret turn speed of the weapon shooting at them. (Turrets should also tell you what their turn rate is. So faster turning turrets will be better at tracking fighters. So even non-PD turrets still have a small chance to land a hit on a fighter if they have good stats in all of those.) The 'dodge' skill should just increase the fighter's maneuverability for a short time making the chance of it getting hit a lot lower, not make the fighter 100% immune to damage. And yes this will have a bit of a cooldown, but maybe have it based on the pilot's skill.

Something I have seen in other games like this is that most of the time fighters are just OP or completely useless. It always seems like balancing fighters is just an impossible thing to do.

So I think fighters should work best when used under the right conditions, and get completely destroyed under the wrong conditions.

 

Here are a few examples of what I am talking about.

  -Let's say you are attacking a ship with only railguns. A Railgun has very high accuracy, long range, and a lot of damage. But they have a very slow turret turn speed and slow rate of fire. (At what range should you order your fighters to attack?) At 'max range' or 'point blank range'? If the enemy ship has only railguns it is very unlikely you will out range their railguns, even if your fighters also have railguns. The smaller railguns of a fighter will also have a little less range as well as less damage. And because railguns do so much damage any fighter would get one shot by them. So you might win if you just have the max number of fighters, but with the enemy ship's railguns having very high accuracy you are very likely to lose a few fighters in the battle.

So what about 'point blank range'? In most cases being closer to the enemy would be even more dangerous, but in this case it would actually be the better option. At 'max range' the enemy ship's railgun's high accuracy can slowly pick off your fighters one-by-one. But at 'point blank range' the high accuracy of the railguns is negated by it's very slow turret turn speed. Because your fighters are at such close range the railgun turrets now have to turn a lot more to even track and aim at your fighters. So under these conditions your fighter squadrons should win with very little to no losses... Cannons would be even worse because at max range they wouldn't have the high accuracy that railguns have along with a much slower projectile speed.

  -Let's look at another example. This time you are trying to take down a ship that has nothing but anti-fighter turrets. (aka Flak Turrets. I really hate how they are called "anti-fighter turrets" because they can also be used against torpedoes and they burst in space without needing to impact a target as if they were set off by a timed or proximity fuze the way many flak weapons do in real life. They need to just change the name of them to "Flak Turrets". >_>) So I'm just going to call them 'flak turrets' anyways because that is what they really are. Flak turrets as things are now might be too good at taking down fighters. They should be great, but only under the right conditions. Flak turrets do a very low amount of damage so fighters should be able to take a few hits before going down, but flak should also have an AoE effect that can cause damage to more than one fighter at once. Now this would give flak an almost guaranteed chance to hit fighters but because of the low damage you would have time to recall your fighters before they all get shot down. So an all flak turret ship seems like it would be impossible for fighters to take down. As the game is now, yes. But if you could give your fighters orders to attack at different ranges you could give the order to attack at 'max range'. If your fighters had a long range weapon like railguns, you could easily just out range the enemy ship's turrets. If your fighters have a very short range weapon then you might not have the right tool for the job. But in that case the chances of your fighters winning should be higher at 'point blank range' if you have very fast and maneuverable fighters. The flak turrets should have much better turret turn speed than a railgun or cannon, but not as good as a chaingun. You will still very likely lose many fighters. How much may depend on the HP and shields of the enemy ship and if your fighters can just kill it first, before all it's flak turrets can get off enough aimed shots to kill all your fighters. But being just inside a flak turrets 'max range' would be suicide. XD

  -Lastly, what if a ship has only chainguns? In this case the best option is always going to be 'max range'. Chainguns would have the fastest turret turning speed (especially PD chainguns)  so they can easily track and aim at even the most fastest and maneuverable fighters. The chaingun has low accuracy and would rely more on it's volume of fire to hit fighters at range. So you are going to want to use fighters that have a very long range weapon like missiles or railguns and get as much range between you and the enemy ship's guns. 'Point blank range' in this case would be suicide. XD

 

So while there is a few changes that need to be made to balance things. I think what we really need more, is the ability to actually form fleets with formations as well as give squadrons of fighters better orders. That way fighters can be used more tactically.

 

Well I think this post is long enough, but I still have a lot more I could talk about. XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Vis, very good post.  Like it all.  TBH, I'd almost kind of like the decision on attacking at point blank vs max range to be AI driven (influenced in part by pilot skill) to cut down on micro managing.

 

Something else I've been thinking about, instead of increasing fighter HPs (or maybe that will still need to be done, but before that...), cut down or even eliminate the damage bonus that PD/Flak weapons get to them.  I'm not sure what the max HPs of fighters is, but I know most of the ones I create top out around 5-600 HPs.  I've gotten PDCs with 50 DPS and flak with over 1100 DPS (though I agree with Vis that flak should have a lower DPS, and maybe trade this with a slightly increased range).  These should fairly good DPS rates to deal with fighters at the HPs I see.

 

The weapon ranges for the turrets used on fighters should probably be decreased some, too, just like how the damage is reduced, that way you can't have fighters shooting from 20km out, out ranging most weapons.

 

Not really to solve the OPs point, but more cause I was thinking more about a previous post of mine where I said I had issues with the current point system for fighters, I'd kind of like to see it where adding a point to one stat can potentially impact the other stats.  Examples: adding a point to speed/maneuverability would cause a minor increase to size (say 25% of what one point directly to size would affect it by).  Adding a point to durability would cause a minor decrease to speed/maneuverability (say 25% of what one point would affect it by) and a slightly bigger increase to size (say 50% of a stat point).  Adding a point to size could  cause a decrease to durability (say 25-50% of a stat point).  Something of that nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Vis, very good post.  Like it all.  TBH, I'd almost kind of like the decision on attacking at point blank vs max range to be AI driven (influenced in part by pilot skill) to cut down on micro managing.

 

Something else I've been thinking about, instead of increasing fighter HPs (or maybe that will still need to be done, but before that...), cut down or even eliminate the damage bonus that PD/Flak weapons get to them.  I'm not sure what the max HPs of fighters is, but I know most of the ones I create top out around 5-600 HPs.  I've gotten PDCs with 50 DPS and flak with over 1100 DPS (though I agree with Vis that flak should have a lower DPS, and maybe trade this with a slightly increased range).  These should fairly good DPS rates to deal with fighters at the HPs I see.

 

The weapon ranges for the turrets used on fighters should probably be decreased some, too, just like how the damage is reduced, that way you can't have fighters shooting from 20km out, out ranging most weapons.

 

Not really to solve the OPs point, but more cause I was thinking more about a previous post of mine where I said I had issues with the current point system for fighters, I'd kind of like to see it where adding a point to one stat can potentially impact the other stats.  Examples: adding a point to speed/maneuverability would cause a minor increase to size (say 25% of what one point directly to size would affect it by).  Adding a point to durability would cause a minor decrease to speed/maneuverability (say 25% of what one point would affect it by) and a slightly bigger increase to size (say 50% of a stat point).  Adding a point to size could  cause a decrease to durability (say 25-50% of a stat point).  Something of that nature.

No, "AI driven (influenced in part by pilot skill)" fighters would just get them all killed. XD I think what we should have for all ships/fighters/other units is some kind of let's call it 'Operations Protocol List'. This tab is where you can set all the default behaviors for each type of your ships/fighters/other units. So if you build a railgun fighter design, you give it a name, then you decide that it works best in most cases at 'max range' you can open up the 'Operations Protocol List' tab, find that fighter and change it's default attack range from 'optimal range' to 'max range'. Then any time you give a squadron of those fighters an order to attack, they will always fight at their 'max range'. But you should still be able to give it a command to attack at 'point blank range' if you come across an enemy ship that is at a disadvantage against fighters in close range combat. This would both cut down on micro managing because you wouldn't need to always give the order to attack at 'max range' for units you know 9 times out of 10 work best at that range, but is still flexible enough that you can change your tactics when needed.

You could also use the 'Operations Protocol List' to set ships from 'return fire' (the default option) if attacked, to 'run away' if it is a non-combat ship like a mining ship. That way you don't need to give your non-combat ships the order to move away from the battle, that will become their default reaction. Right now all ships just sit there idle while getting shot unless you make them move or give an order. Like what the hell am I paying captains 15,000 credits for when they can't even take control of their ship and fight if they are in a combat ship, or run and get to a safe place if they are in a non-combat ship. ::)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

No, "AI driven (influenced in part by pilot skill)" fighters would just get them all killed. XD I think what we should have for all ships/fighters/other units is some kind of let's call it 'Operations Protocol List'. This tab is where you can set all the default behaviors for each type of your ships/fighters/other units. So if you build a railgun fighter design, you give it a name, then you decide that it works best in most cases at 'max range' you can open up the 'Operations Protocol List' tab, find that fighter and change it's default attack range from 'optimal range' to 'max range'. Then any time you give a squadron of those fighters an order to attack, they will always fight at their 'max range'. But you should still be able to give it a command to attack at 'point blank range' if you come across an enemy ship that is at a disadvantage against fighters in close range combat. This would both cut down on micro managing because you wouldn't need to always give the order to attack at 'max range' for units you know 9 times out of 10 work best at that range, but is still flexible enough that you can change your tactics when needed.

You could also use the 'Operations Protocol List' to set ships from 'return fire' (the default option) if attacked, to 'run away' if it is a non-combat ship like a mining ship. That way you don't need to give your non-combat ships the order to move away from the battle, that will become their default reaction. Right now all ships just sit there idle while getting shot unless you make them move or give an order. Like what the hell am I paying captains 15,000 credits for when they can't even take control of their ship and fight if they are in a combat ship, or run and get to a safe place if they are in a non-combat ship. ::)

 

Ah, yes, I like that suggestion, too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi,

 

I think giving orders for fighters to attack at point blank range, optimal range, max range, and orbit shouldn't be built into the fighter, but should be something you can change when needed to use different tactics when fighting different ships.

ok, so some way to tell those fighters (and your AI-controlled ships) how they should behave... Problem is: Fighters are currently too slow to keep up with fast ships, that makes them unable to get into/out of range.

-> We need better stats on our fighters (especially speed), but the material-costs and production time shouldn't increase even more.

 

As for fighters getting hit, I think it should depend more on the fighter's maneuverability, pilot's skill and speed vs the weapons type, accuracy, rate of fire and turret turn speed of the weapon shooting at them. (Turrets should also tell you what their turn rate is. So faster turning turrets will be better at tracking fighters. So even non-PD turrets still have a small chance to land a hit on a fighter if they have good stats in all of those.)

^^ Lazer-Gunz :P

Normal Lasers should be good at killing fighters, too, at close range those might have problems to keep up with their target.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

ok, so some way to tell those fighters (and your AI-controlled ships) how they should behave... Problem is: Fighters are currently too slow to keep up with fast ships, that makes them unable to get into/out of range.

-> We need better stats on our fighters (especially speed), but the material-costs and production time shouldn't increase even more.

 

Well like I said before, some changes will need to be made. Giving fighters a bit more speed would be one of those changes.

 

^^ Lazer-Gunz :P

Normal Lasers should be good at killing fighters, too, at close range those might have problems to keep up with their target.

You can also just out range lasers if you have the right type of fighters. Because lasers don't have a super long range. Carriers would need to have a mix of different fighter types and use the right ones against the right targets. If you only have 1 type of fighter than you will be effective against some targets, and very ineffective against others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I like how this is going. Thankyou guys for your contributions.

 

There really are a lot of issues contributing the whole of it. As much as i would like to see fighters survive longer, the amount of changes everywhere else to make that happen seem like a lot more work than we're going to see done... I don't like when my fighters die. Not just because of costs/time, but they are my little fighters, and i like to see them come home.

 

But without significant changes to the way they behave, their stats (such as speed and durability), and a major reduction in the amount of AF/PDC that spawns all over the galaxy, I don't know that the problem is going to be easily resolved.

 

Honestly, in the past i've always defended the costs and time because i've always managed to be able to keep my fighters alive. Now though, this just doesn't seem possible, and the primary culprit to their deaths is those flak cannons.

I just lost 4 more fighters last night before i even knew what was happening, because I sent them after a pirate in an alliance sector. They didn't die to the pirate, they died when the alliance frigate boosted in and felt it perfectly fine to fire it's anti-fighter cannons at the pirate surrounded with my fighters. It was the only turrets that thing had. 6k omi worth.

 

 

I don't care if i have an encounter that's set up to wipe out squads of my fighters. I was fine with old seeds long ago where the only major spawns of these things was on anti-fighter frigates. Atleast then, you could plan to keep your fighters away from them, or keep them docked until you take out those frigates. It was actually an enjoyable tactical encounter.  But now those anti-fighter frigates are not any more of a threat than any other ship out there. I have had the seed spawn entire factions using only PDC or AFT for their weapons, and nothing else...

 

It also doesn't seem appropriate that my already 15 slot ship needs to double it's current mass in assembly blocks, just so i can craft a single fighter every 20 minutes. .  The assembly costs need diminishing returns. I do not like that i have to turn my ship into what looks like an ant trying to lug around a large wood chipping, because there's just no way to fit that much assembly block into a reasonable ship design. It's either that, or craft 1 fighter every 3 hours...

 

 

I would love to be able to craft different types of fighters with different behaviors, such as bombers, snipers, and shock-trooper fighters, but just having that wouldn't make this problem go away. They are too slow, too fragile, and there's far too much pdc/AF in the galaxy. Your fighters will all just die at any random time with little you can do to avoid it, regardless of what their AI/type is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Yeah, if they added in some of the suggestions I made you would lose little to no fighters if you use the right type against the right target. You could just launch long range fighters and give them the order to attack at 'max range' and flak wouldn't be able to reach them.

 

Also you should be able to order your fighters to 'form up' and 'break formation' as well as 'orbit', (where they just circle around the target in a swarm) or set a single 'attack vector' (where fighters attack a ship only from a single angle). This would be used against ships that have all their weapons only on the front, top, or sides. If an enemy ship doesn't have good weapon coverage all around it, that is a weakness your fighters could exploit. They could fly around to the side or back of an enemy ship an attack where none of it's weapons can even see the fighters.

So if the enemy ship does have very good weapon coverage all around it then 'orbit' and 'break formation' would be the better option to split up the enemy's fire.

If they have a large blind spot in their weapon coverage then an 'attack vector' plus having them 'form up' in a tight formation would be the better option.

 

And these options will also be on the 'Operations Protocol List' so you can set these to be the default behaviors of your fighters if you most of the time use a them in one way or another. That way you only need to give commands to have them use a different tactic when it is needed. 

 

Yeah, I would have added that part in earlier but my post was getting too long so I decided to add it in now. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Yeah, if they added in some of the suggestions I made you would lose little to no fighters if you use the right type against the right target. You could just launch long range fighters and give them the order to attack at 'max range' and flak wouldn't be able to reach them.

...

So if the enemy ship does have very good weapon coverage all around it then 'orbit' and 'break formation' would be the better option to split up the enemy's fire.

If they have a large blind spot in their weapon coverage then an 'attack vector' plus having them 'form up' in a tight formation would be the better option. 

except there are Interceptor-Fighters (one of my suggestions)...

 

Somehow I think, having artillery-weapons (long range) on fighters is a stupid idea - in terms of gameplay. Just think about NPCs attacking you that way the whole time, wouldn't that annoy you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

except there are Interceptor-Fighters (one of my suggestions)...

 

Somehow I think, having artillery-weapons (long range) on fighters is a stupid idea - in terms of gameplay. Just think about NPCs attacking you that way the whole time, wouldn't that annoy you?

 

No, not really... Because as I said in my first post, ship weapons would have more range than fighter weapons of the same type, but also different fighters would also have advantages and disadvantages against other fighters.

So even if you had railguns on all your fighters they wouldn't be able to out range the railguns on a ship. If the enemy ship launched chaingun fighters against your railgun fighters, they would tear your railgun fighters apart once they got in close range because their rate of fire is so much higher than that of a railgun. The railgun fighters could one shot other fighters, but that is only if they hit. There is still a chance many will miss and some fighters might also target the same enemy fighter. With the very slow reload time the railgun fighters would have they would only get off one shot before the chaingun fighters could close the distance to 'point blank range'. Then the chaingun fighters could kill the railgun fighters before they can get off a 2nd shot.

Now if the enemy doesn't have any fighters and only has very short range weapons, then it's their fault for designing their ships in a way that gives you and easy and flawless victory. ;D

So having artillery-weapons (long range) on fighters is NOT stupid or an annoying idea because there are ways to counter them. If you designed all your ships and fighters with only one weapon type, then THAT would be a stupid idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi Vis,

 

easy and flawless victory. ;D

sorry, I had to butcher your post... That's the only point about artillery-weapons on fighters.

 

Imagine big cannons or railguns (if we had those) on real fighters, how far would the recoil push those fighters back?!?

Missiles are more realistic, but not in infinite numbers.

Energy-Artillery (Lightning Guns) on fighters - would the needed battery (and generator) even fit into a small fighter?

 

I think it's bad enough to have weapons on ships, that can kill enemies while they are still 20 .. 30 km away. Plus, there are Torpedoes, too, but those can be shot down by PDCs/PDLs (just like fighters)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

TBH, I’d be perfectly fine if only PDC/PDL turrets could be used with fighters, with no damage penalty/bonuses applied, and range was reduced to somewhere around 3-4km.  But then it’d be nice if a secondary, limited shot or high reload time missile or similar type weapon could be applied, but doing so increased the size of the fighter (requiring more points to get it down to size 1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hi,

TBH, I’d be perfectly fine if only PDC/PDL turrets could be used with fighters, with no damage penalty/bonuses applied, and range was reduced to somewhere around 3-4km.

why? Why would you want reduced range for PDCs/PDLs on fighters?

 

Currently you could simply use a normal Laser for the fighter and get 30% (or was it 33%) of its' damage (in the best case), you'd still get 100% accuracy and use it against fighters and anything else.

 

But then it’d be nice if a secondary, limited shot or high reload time missile or similar type weapon could be applied, but doing so increased the size of the fighter (requiring more points to get it down to size 1).

See above, we've got that limited shot (and something that works against fighters).

 

Well, one could think about a secondary PDC-/PDL-Turret on Bombers... Ever seen something like https://www.wcnews.com/wcpedia/Avenger? But those Bombers shouldn't get down to size 1, in return you get "a lot of HP" and firepower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Imagine big cannons or railguns (if we had those) on real fighters, how far would the recoil push those fighters back?!?

Not very far at all if the fighters had free-floating barrel designed cannons because that would reduce the recoil.

And railguns would have very little recoil because they use electromagnetic force to launch high velocity projectiles instead of a powder charge like cannons do.

Missiles are more realistic, but not in infinite numbers.

The problem with missiles is they would take a very long time to reach the target. And if each fighter had a limited number you would have to keep recalling your fighters after they fired to reload them.

Energy-Artillery (Lightning Guns) on fighters - would the needed battery (and generator) even fit into a small fighter?

I'm pretty sure Avorion takes place in the future where we have the technology to fit a lot more power into much smaller batteries/smaller generators. ;D

I think it's bad enough to have weapons on ships, that can kill enemies while they are still 20 .. 30 km away. Plus, there are Torpedoes, too, but those can be shot down by PDCs/PDLs (just like fighters)...

So you just don't want any ships to have any weapons at all? Or only be able to shoot each other from 1km away? Because that would be a very lame game if all ship battles were like that instead of having different ship designs that would be more effective against different targets, at different ranges.

 

TBH, I’d be perfectly fine if only PDC/PDL turrets could be used with fighters, with no damage penalty/bonuses applied, and range was reduced to somewhere around 3-4km.

Having fighters that could only have PDC/PDL would be a terrible idea because then you would have fighters that are only effective against other fighters.

But then it’d be nice if a secondary, limited shot or high reload time missile or similar type weapon could be applied,

Giving fighters 2 weapons would make them too effective against too many things. Because then you could give a fighter a PDC for other fighters and a railgun for ships.

but doing so increased the size of the fighter (requiring more points to get it down to size 1).

I would be okay with different types of turrets forcing a size requirement for fighters. So weapons like PDC/PDL you could build size 1 fighters, but things like a railgun or cannon would need size 4 or higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...