Could Fighters Get a Buff?

[Energywelder]

It's been a very long time since I've posted on here last, it might actually be more than 2 years. It was also a suggested game change, and ironically, as most of my suggestions were shot down by the community, most of my suggestions have been, or are going to be, implemented. Jump Drives, Trading convoys, stuff like that. Like I said, it's been a long time.

Well I was playing multiplayer the other day, working towards making a very large yacht, and someone was regaling me with how PD turrets can be very effective at shooting down missiles (sign me up). And of course other were talking too, and a side conversation was talking about how some guy has got a sweet new carrier. And in that moment it got me thinking about fighters in SM. "Kinda underpowered considering Titans can have lasers measured in Megatons/s". Which, when you think, is kinda fair, are 700m ships supposed to fire anything less? But fighters are supposed to be part of the equation too. Even in WW2, the largest battleships were sunk by torpedo bombers. IJNS Yamato had 18" guns that fired bullets taller than me and you (bullets, not including the powder charges behind them), because it was a Battleship, Battleships were supposed to be mobile artillery platforms (also country's dick measurers). The Bismark was forced to scuttle after being disabled by Swordfish (BIPLANES! The fucking insult), The Tirpitz was damaged beyond repair by British air forces (and a suicide run by a rigged destroyer against her drydock). And then there was Pearl Harbor . . . Fighters should have a place in SM to take on "Battleships". Also dog-fighting would be fun, and ultra-small efficient fighter builds would be fun to watch. But how?

. . . Torpedoes? Maybe?

Here is how. Create a new block (or weapon computer/weapon block combo, you know what I mean), it shoots so called "Torpedos", it doesn't need to be any different existing missiles in any way. But, and here's the balance, it deals unreasonable amounts of damage, but only depending on how many blocks the ship firing it has. A 200 block fighter with a one block group might fire a torpedo that deals a certain amount of damage, but a 2000 block corvette with a one block group might fire a torpedo that deals 1/20th that damage.

Proposed ways to keep the balance.
-The torpedo can't do so much damage that a SINGLE fighter can take down a 1m block titan.

-The torpedo should be able to do enough damage that 50 healthy fighters of a TBD size should stand a better than average chance of seriously damaging an unprotected titan.

-Torpedo damage is decreased exponentially when it detects it's host ship is docked (or the speed is greatly decreased), because small torpedo turret spam is something I want to head off right out of the gate.

-The equation for torpedo damage calculations should be in one of the config files so diehard "Titans ftw, fighters suk" servers can nerf them just as fast, or other servers could jack it up to encourage fewer Titans.

-Torpedos should be AS interceptable as missiles are now or more so, so PD armed titans get a fighting chance.

-Torpedos create a very large explosion, fighters can't sneak up beside a titan and just derp torpedos into blind spots without taking damage.

-Torpedo groups (if computer/weapon blocks are the way this goes) should have a soft cap per group, also configurable, along with a hard cap.

Why I think with these balances should do the trick.
Someone described their PD turret to me as 50 cannon groups backed up by several pulse groups firing into the path of any incoming missiles. Unless Fighters want to see their damage decreased, they won't add any amount of useful shields (like the SW X-wing had), so fighters will take damage quickly. Same thing for armor, unless one of those is actually economical, in which case you'll need to add a proportional amount of more engines, further decreasing your damage. Having a couple fighters mounted to your titan and set to hunt bombers (also, add a new option to bobby AI to detect small ships) wouldn't kill you. Bombers having more torpedo groups available but being slower, and doing less damage per group, but having a greater chance of doing ANY damage (being able to get closer or lower chance that all torpedos are intercepted by PD fire) would be an interesting trade-off for people to investigate.

I'm really interested in what people will think of this idea, and I'm really interested in feedback, because so far all I've gotten so far is silence or "fighters suk, titans need buff". Looking for something a little more coherent here please.

 

[Mariux]

Fighters are already a more viable option in regards to mass-to-firepower ratio. Now, that we have carrier systems in and it is possible to manage all those drones, why change anything? Besides, there's also the missile+pulse combo that does the torpedo's job just fine.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Fighters are honestly fine as is. An equivalent block count of fighters will pretty much overwhelm a giant ship (I say equivalent, you don't need anywhere near as many as that, less then a 3rd block count will often do the trick), barring a ship specifically designed for holding off large groups of small vessels (and those ships are in turn vulnerable to other large ships specialized in taking on similar sized vessels). Work them in tandem with specially designed bombers, and other large vessels and set up their weapons well (100% rapid fire isn't very good on smaller vessels, you're often better off getting decent penetration per shot, especially against armoured targets) and you can make fighters pretty deadly.

 

[Malacodor]

Are you aware that every single core system already has some kind of diminishing returns for bigger ships? Do you know that a fleet of fighters with a total mass of 100k can easily wipe out a single 100k mass ship, unless it has so many turrets, that it's basically another fighter fleet on a dock? If you invest lots of resources to build a big ship, would you find it fair to lose it to a few fighters?

Edit: Lol, double ninja'd.

 

[Groovrider]

I feel this is an issue because popular culture has trained players to believe that fighters have to be small (WW2 examples everywhere) When what they really have to be is effective. If your fighter is not making a dent then it's simply deficient. Don't make ships that are tactically useless because you want to be Luke Skywalker. Be aware, most sci-fi (ie not the stuff on TV but in books) fighters as you think of them don't exist.
Terrestrial ordinance is the way it is because those are the rules of the world in which it resides. If those rules change (in space with armor and shields) you have to accept that combat will change too.

 

[Energywelder]

I feel this is an issue because popular culture has trained players to believe that fighters have to be small (WW2 examples everywhere) When what they really have to be is effective. If your fighter is not making a dent then it's simply deficient. Don't make ships that are tactically useless because you want to be Luke Skywalker. Be aware, most sci-fi (ie not the stuff on TV but in books) fighters as you think of them don't exist.
Terrestrial ordinance is the way it is because those are the rules of the world in which it resides. If those rules change (in space with armor and shields) you have to accept that combat will change too.

Space fighters could realistically be mounting nuclear warheads for their armament.

 

[Groovrider]

Space fighters could realistically be mounting nuclear warheads for their armament.

True but we don't play in that universe. We have to use the tools at hand in this one.

 

[Energywelder]

Are you aware that every single core system already has some kind of diminishing returns for bigger ships? Do you know that a fleet of fighters with a total mass of 100k can easily wipe out a single 100k mass ship, unless it has so many turrets, that it's basically another fighter fleet on a dock? If you invest lots of resources to build a big ship, would you find it fair to lose it to a few fighters?

Edit: Lol, double ninja'd.

Of course not, I'm not suggesting anyone would think it fair, but neither did the Yamato, Bismark, or Tirptitz. In fact, because the USN insists on exploiting bugs in the code, it has invested more than 100B$ in its fleet of at least 10 supercarriers and the first and second largest airforces in the world.

 

[Malacodor]

Space fighters could realistically be mounting nuclear warheads for their armament.

And would run out of fuel after a few minutes.

 

[7Echo]

Small fighters can now carry and power larger weapons with the addition of the new Aux power block. I like things the way they are.

 

[Energywelder]

And would run out of fuel after a few minutes.

Only depending on what type of engine you're mounting. In SM we're mounting reactionless drives that convert electric power to viable amounts of thrust.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

And not mounting realistic nuclear weapons.

 

[Energywelder]

Small fighters can now carry and power larger weapons with the addition of the new Aux power block. I like things the way they are.

If you're building a ship large enough to need power aux, I don't think we're talking about the same size ship.
[doublepost=1474470163,1474470016][/doublepost]

And not mounting realistic nuclear weapons.

Ah, but SM isn't in a realm of fantasy, where science does not apply, it's in a space opera setting where science has advanced so far we SHOULD have something better than nukes and even AM bombs (I've heard promising things about unique quark bombs)

 

[Pacific_Jim]

Starmade is also a game, with a prominent competitive PVP element, and as such needs to balance for a variety of different play styles and the like. Something that's important for that to work is making sure one form of play or tactic doesn't completely dominate the others, for example not making PVP combat dedicated solely to 9m stub fighters lobbing nukes at each other, because nothing else would be worth bothering with.
You want the torpedo type weapons there's either warheads, which are relatively low damage but bypass shields making them a decent choice for bigger ships (at least, theoretically, the AI needs some work with them), or making a fairly large missile.

If you want to justify the lack of firepower realistically, some combination of several meter thick armour (potentially made of some sci-fi/fantasy materal), shielding and the Starmade universe simply not being to scale with the real universe should probably cover it.

 

[Groovrider]

We do. We have directed energy weapons that can fire faster, with greater force and with greater accuracy than any 21st century nuke. Just don't expect to mount such a thing on the space shuttle. I always love the part in Independence Day (1996, R. Emmerich) when they try nuking the ships (WITH THE SHIELDS STILL UP). As if something that has traveled that far through the energistic horrors of deep space is going to be troubled by our little firecrackers.

 

[Energywelder]

Starmade is also a game, with a prominent competitive PVP element, and as such needs to balance for a variety of different play styles and the like. Something that's important for that to work is making sure one form of play or tactic doesn't completely dominate the others, for example not making PVP combat dedicated solely to 9m stub fighters lobbing nukes at each other, because nothing else would be worth bothering with.
You want the torpedo type weapons there's either warheads, which are relatively low damage but bypass shields making them a decent choice for bigger ships (at least, theoretically, the AI needs some work with them), or making a fairly large missile.

If you want to justify the lack of firepower realistically, some combination of several meter thick armour (potentially made of some sci-fi/fantasy materal), shielding and the Starmade universe simply not being to scale with the real universe should probably cover it.

I hadn't heard warheads bypass shields now. In fact I was having conversations with several people who are better at this game on that very question and all stated warheads were useless. I even recently tested warheads on my station and watched (from very far away) the shockwave bounce off my shields.

I don't want to introduce fighters so that they completely supplant titans, I like titans, I'm even planning on building my own very soon. But I'm concerned with how everyone's answer (on the server I play) to the newest titan on the block is to design a larger titan or make one vaguely the same size but more efficient. It's an arms race to the largest titan. It's completely ruling out the idea of alternate design theories.

And I'm not suggesting that torpedos become the staple of all small fighters, I only want it easily available to the servers who can then choose whether to leave it enabled or not.

 

[Edymnion]

I feel this is an issue because popular culture has trained players to believe that fighters have to be small (WW2 examples everywhere) When what they really have to be is effective. If your fighter is not making a dent then it's simply deficient. Don't make ships that are tactically useless because you want to be Luke Skywalker. Be aware, most sci-fi (ie not the stuff on TV but in books) fighters as you think of them don't exist.
Terrestrial ordinance is the way it is because those are the rules of the world in which it resides. If those rules change (in space with armor and shields) you have to accept that combat will change too.

This.

Too many people think Starmade fighters have to be tiny little shuttlepods. They don't. People make the fighter vs. battleship analogy, and then equip their fighters with a .22 and wonder why it can't dent something with 3 inch steel plating.

Build an actual fighter. Not a disposable drone, but an actual fighter.

 

[Energywelder]

We do. We have directed energy weapons that can fire faster, with greater force and with greater accuracy than any 21st century nuke. Just don't expect to mount such a thing on the space shuttle. I always love the part in Independence Day (1996, R. Emmerich) when they try nuking the ships (WITH THE SHIELDS STILL UP). As if something that has traveled that far through the energistic horrors of deep space is going to be troubled by our little firecrackers.

Actually, it is my understanding that they understood they just crashed the shields, they now need to boogie, what better distraction than a nuke?

And of course large ships have big guns, that's why they are there. I merely ponder the possibility of a maneuverable craft being able to get a large payload close enough to do accurate high damage.
[doublepost=1474471855,1474471604][/doublepost]

This.

Too many people think Starmade fighters have to be tiny little shuttlepods. They don't. People make the fighter vs. battleship analogy, and then equip their fighters with a .22 and wonder why it can't dent something with 3 inch steel plating.

Build an actual fighter. Not a disposable drone, but an actual fighter.

That's what I'm trying to explain in so many words. What I'm thinking is on the order of a couple hundred blocks. Nothing like a 9 block long job. Although I don't expect the player to be in the fighter, I expect a single fighter vs BB to end very fast, and not in favor of the fighter. They can't take the damage, and they can't single handedly do enough damage, even against a ship with no shields.

 

[Malacodor]

I merely ponder the possibility of a maneuverable craft being able to get a large payload close enough to do accurate high damage.

That would be too easy. You can easily overwelm PD turrets with missile spam and distract anti-fighter turrets with cheap drones.

 

[Edymnion]

What I'm thinking is on the order of a couple hundred blocks.

A couple hundred blocks total is still a pod in my book.

You're taking a dingy, mounting a .22 rifle on it, and wondering why even a fleet of them can't hurt an aircraft carrier.

Its not a fundamental flaw in the game, its a flaw in the thinking of people that are trying to build tiny tiny tiny little ships and throw them against hulking behemoths.