|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||May 22, 2013 5:23 am|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Vote Tallies | FAQ|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0009138||AI War||Suggestion - Balance Tweaks||Aug 5, 2012 6:19 pm||Aug 9, 2012 5:20 pm|
|Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0009138: Buff fighters to reduce blobbing|
|Description||My solution to the bomber problem would be to give fighters (and fighter-like bonus ships) a huge buff (3-5x damage) while increasing their cost slightly (1.5 times or so) (also add a .5 multiplier to structural, so they don't eclipse bombers).|
I think this would achieve the following positive effects:
Fighter waves no longer utterly ignorable
Bombers nerfed by virtue of having a more effective counter
Frigates buffed by virtue of countering a more effective unit.
Blobbing is worse (blobbing already sacrifices fighter power, now it would be more noticeable)
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Internal Weight||Feature Suggestion|
Aug 5, 2012 6:47 pm
Yea, I was going to nominate fighters in the next "worst units" poll.
Their cap health isn't terrible, but not enough to make up for their small range. Their speed isn't great, only slightly better than bombers. And their cap DPS, although not horrid, is nowhere near enough to make up for the previously mentioned cons. And just to nail in the bad, they only have 3 hull type bonuses, two of which are at a strikingly small mangnitude compared to the bonuses of the other triangle ships' hull bonuses (though I would argue that idealy the other ships' bonuses should go down, not the fighter's go up, but buffing it could make for a good short term fix).
Granted, two of those three are very useful (polycrystal, for anti bomber, always useful; and close combat, to deal with some very deadly unit types if you let them do their thing, melee ships), but again, not enough to make up for their cons.
I would say buff their health a bit (though they should still have the weakest individual average durability of the three), buff their general DPS by a good amount (possibly reducing their bonus vs polycrystal a bit IF they prove to be too good at countering bombers with this change), and buff their speed. Possibly buff their range a bit too, but not by too much. They should still have the shortest range of the three.
Bonus ships based on fighter's stats should be updated accordingly too.
Aug 5, 2012 6:58 pm
edited on: Aug 5, 2012 7:07 pm
Actually, upon further review, fighters have a better cap health than bombers, better base DPS than bombers, and the same speed as bombers.
However, as bombers have many more hull type bonuses, many of those types beig FAR more common and typically on more important targets, and a higher magnitude of the bonuses, the average DPS of the bombers is easily much more than the fighters, despite being less at base DPS.
Not so sure what is going on with health though. Aside from fortresses, why do bombers seem to live longer, despite having worse health? Better range? Less things get a bonus against their hull type (not even sure that is true)? Not sure what is going on there.
Faulty Logic (reporter)
Aug 5, 2012 7:02 pm
|The durability difference comes mainly from the long-range, heavy-alpha missile frigates destroying most enemy fighters before they can get to your bombers, and your own fighters being wiped out by the same.|
Aug 5, 2012 8:46 pm
|This is basically a lesser version of what I proposed. But yes, functionally making Fighters the most powerful Triangle ship has positive consequences on the game for the reasons listed. Even if they are "imbalanced", it's still a net positive in terms of gameplay. I approve of this buff.|
Aug 5, 2012 9:15 pm
I'm not sure about this.
I see this as a patch fix that is really part of the armor/hull-type/attack-multiplier discussion that has been going on for months.
I'm not trying to say this suggestion does not have value but in my current game it seems like every bonus ship unlocked by the AI has a polycrystal bonus and my bombers currently have very low life expectancy as it is.
Also, as a more defensive player I will quite often unlock Fighter Mk II before Bomber Mk II as in early to early-mid game I love fighters because they absolutely neuter the AI's mobile ships (allowing me to skimp on turrets) and anything heavy you run into that early can be handled by Mk I bombers.
Actually, I just realized that the real problem here is that fighters are fundamentally a defensive unit to kill smaller AI ships. Right now Turrets are what do most of the killing of AI smaller ships by aggroing them as threat into a friendly system.
I certainly don't want to remove turrets from the game, maybe add polycrystal bonuses to more small ship types so that bombers need a fighter escort to survive?
If we can't figure out a role for fighters when on the attack in an AI system, messing with their stats won't be worth anything.
Aug 5, 2012 9:27 pm
I think the Fighter's role should be multipurpose, which is a fighter's purpose in the classical sense.
A Fighter is like a soldier in a ground military. Is a soldier imbalanced? Well cost-wise, absolutely. They are cheap, mobile, versatile, expendable, and can counter even your biggest threat. All it takes is 1 soldier with a rocket launcher to take out a tank worth several hundred times its cost. Soldiers for this reason are the backbone of any army. Yes they're weak and fragile comparatively, but if used correctly, they dominate the battlefield.
There is a similar role for the Fighter. They should be good against a multitude of threats. And while they have their hard counters, I think it makes the most sense that they are the most powerful Triangle ship of all. This isn't just me talking from a realism standpoint, but from a balance standpoint as well. Bombers are frankly too good, so buffing Fighters is a direct nerf to them. I don't see a problem with this AT ALL.
Aug 5, 2012 9:50 pm
|I wonder if it might also help just to have more fighters on a typical AI world? Since bombers are really your most powerful ship on attack, it would make sense for the AI to keep a lot of bomber-killers on hand to defend --- much as we do when facing big waves. It seems like it might go some way toward answering the issues people have been talking about with bombers being overpowered and taking over planets being too easy if the AI just had more things to kill bombers with. Perhaps it would make sense for the AI to have a reenforcement budget more like our research budget, with a certain portion set aside for fighters and frigates and then another portion for the normal mix of bonus ships?|
Aug 5, 2012 11:22 pm
|honestly i think giving fighters a x3 shot multiplier would put them about right. with their low range they are still effectively attacking only 1 blob at a time and it makes up for the fact that they cant close against targets running away(namely bombers heading to target). so once they get there they wouldn't be ignorable except by high armor ships.|
Aug 6, 2012 12:16 am
|It's also stupid that Bombers move at the same speed as Fighters. If Fighters are supposed to "intercepting" Bombers, it only makes sense that they move faster.|
Faulty Logic (reporter)
Aug 9, 2012 4:55 pm
|I just realized that the new fighters would need a sub-one multiplier against structural, else they are simply better than the bomber.|
|Only registered users can voice their support. Click here to register, or here to log in.|
|Supporters:||Faulty Logic TechSY730 Wingflier martyn_van_buren motai Kahuna|
|Aug 5, 2012 6:19 pm||Faulty Logic||New Issue|
|Aug 5, 2012 6:47 pm||TechSY730||Note Added: 0027386|
|Aug 5, 2012 6:58 pm||TechSY730||Note Added: 0027387|
|Aug 5, 2012 7:02 pm||Faulty Logic||Note Added: 0027389|
|Aug 5, 2012 7:07 pm||TechSY730||Note Edited: 0027387||View Revisions|
|Aug 5, 2012 8:46 pm||Wingflier||Note Added: 0027392|
|Aug 5, 2012 9:15 pm||Dazio||Note Added: 0027394|
|Aug 5, 2012 9:27 pm||Wingflier||Note Added: 0027395|
|Aug 5, 2012 9:50 pm||martyn_van_buren||Note Added: 0027396|
|Aug 5, 2012 11:22 pm||motai||Note Added: 0027399|
|Aug 6, 2012 12:16 am||Wingflier||Note Added: 0027402|
|Aug 6, 2012 10:48 am||tigersfan||Internal Weight||=> Feature Suggestion|
|Aug 6, 2012 10:48 am||tigersfan||Status||new => considering|
|Aug 9, 2012 4:55 pm||Faulty Logic||Note Added: 0027496|
|Aug 9, 2012 4:56 pm||Faulty Logic||Description Updated||View Revisions|
|Aug 9, 2012 5:20 pm||Dazio||Relationship added||related to 0009180|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group|