Balancing the Fleet Triangle - A Community Poll

[Wingflier]

Doesn't bother me.  The community might have you drawn and quartered, though

This one actually turned out pretty well I think.

I think the process of getting here nearly had me drawn and quartered

[Hearteater]

Assuming it's okay for me to keep doing these unofficial community input, brainstorming, and poll routines.

Doesn't bother me.  The community might have you drawn and quartered, though

Wait, that was an option? I need to read these polls more carefully.

EDIT: We can't change our votes sadly .

[Drjones013]

I've been waiting for SOMEONE to mention something like this for some time. Virtually every single person that I've introduced the game to has mentioned, at some point, that fighters are disposable cannon fodder that you build to soak damage.

Voted for Minotaar and Keith's. The speed boost would really help set fighters apart just by itself.

[Wingflier]

I've been waiting for SOMEONE to mention something like this for some time. Virtually every single person that I've introduced the game to has mentioned, at some point, that fighters are disposable cannon fodder that you build to soak damage.

Voted for Minotaar and Keith's. The speed boost would really help set fighters apart just by itself.

Thanks, I also agree that most people first trying out this game will probably take one look at Fighters and say...wow, disappointing. 

[Eternaly_Lost]

I've been waiting for SOMEONE to mention something like this for some time. Virtually every single person that I've introduced the game to has mentioned, at some point, that fighters are disposable cannon fodder that you build to soak damage.

Voted for Minotaar and Keith's. The speed boost would really help set fighters apart just by itself.

I also voted for Minotaar and Keith's. I think the two of them work well together.

[MaxAstro]

Voted for Minotaar's, Daizo's alt, and Chemical's alt.

I think anti-guardian is a great role for fighters, and taking that away from bombers is similarly a good idea.  That way, of the two main things you find yourself needing to take out on planets (guardians and force fields), fighters and bombers each have one role.

I also think giving fighters a considerable speed boost would be a really cool way to give them their own "niche", and it would highly encourage using them in an interceptor roll or (with the above) for lightning-speed guardian raids.  I would probably combine it with toning down their HP slightly, though; again to encourage raiding and intercepting with them.

Lastly, I think bombers need to be less good as general purpose; specializing them slightly more against their key targets makes sense, and slowing them down makes them harder to use alone.  It also encourages grouping them with Frigates rather than Fighters, meaning they are more likely to be paired with the unit meant to be protecting them; right now they are much faster than frigates and it's tempting to group them in with the also-fast fighters.

EDIT: Basically the way I see the triangle ships working together is frigates screen bombers until the bombers can get to the heavy target and take it down; meanwhile fighters strategically leave the safety of the blob to go pick off targets that would be a threat if they got close.

[Martyn van Buren]

I find that last description pretty convincing; I guess it's something that's been said a dozen times but that makes it clear to me.

[Irxallis]

Too Long; Didn't Read:

Voted for Diazo's Alternate Solution, but everything suits me except 'do nothing'.


Explanation:

I play mostly multiplayer games, 2-4 players at 7.0 - 8.0, with basic hybrids. I am the most advanced player from this group (not very advanced though in comparison to other posters in this thread)

From that point of view there is almost nothing as devastating as when one of my allies makes a mistake and a dreaded wave / hybrids appear in an unexpected place. This requires 'all units to battlestations' approach.

That is why my primary vote is for Diazo's Alternate Solution (though the speed buff might be a bit too extreme). Having fighters as very quick units with decent parameters is enough for me to unlock higher marks of them as raiders/incerceptors.
Even if they die while defending / distracting, my gravity turrets will buy me time to refleet them and send them back.

And buy more time for the 'rightful' defenders to come.

Obviously, Raid Starships fail in this role - too expensive and too little damage for the defensive role.

Side effect: I can insert a group of fighters into the system (like very fast raiders) and distract the defenders while sending bombers in the transport to heavy target.

If not this, any other solution (or combination of solutions) suits me, as long as anything is done to improve fighters. I am mostly interested in speed adjustments - for blobbing I always have Ctrl+G but at this moment there is no ship suitable for intercepting bombers.

[Diazo]

Lastly, I think bombers need to be less good as general purpose; specializing them slightly more against their key targets makes sense, and slowing them down makes them harder to use alone.  It also encourages grouping them with Frigates rather than Fighters, meaning they are more likely to be paired with the unit meant to be protecting them; right now they are much faster than frigates and it's tempting to group them in with the also-fast fighters.

Interesting to see how different people play.

To me, it is fighters that are supposed to be escorting bombers. Frigates are a defensive unit who use their range to keep small ships away from my fleet.

I simply feel frigates are too slow to escort bombers, I don't want to almost double my time in-system due to the slower move speed when I'm making a small raiding attack.

I do bring frigates along on a medium weight attack, but that will see me having two control groups in the system, the fast group of fighter and bombers and the slow group of frigates escorting plasma sieges. (Plasma siege often being the first SS I build.)

Playstyle differences strike again.

D.

[Draco18s]

I think anti-guardian is a great role for fighters, and taking that away from bombers is similarly a good idea.  That way, of the two main things you find yourself needing to take out on planets (guardians and force fields), fighters and bombers each have one role.

I am wondering if perhaps we should give these guardians a multiplier vs. polycrystal, to emphasize that role a little farther.  If guardians cuddly hug  your bombers, and fighters cuddly hug  the guardians, balance is maintained.*  It also encourages you to send your fighters and bombers out together (although other options are available).

*It's not a triangular relationship, but it's still balanced.  And one I'm considering for my procedurally generated RTS, that is, a core of not three units, but of six.  Player starts with A,C,E and the AI with B,D,F.  A > B > C > D > E > F > A

[Wingflier]

Lastly, I think bombers need to be less good as general purpose; specializing them slightly more against their key targets makes sense, and slowing them down makes them harder to use alone.  It also encourages grouping them with Frigates rather than Fighters, meaning they are more likely to be paired with the unit meant to be protecting them; right now they are much faster than frigates and it's tempting to group them in with the also-fast fighters.

Interesting to see how different people play.

To me, it is fighters that are supposed to be escorting bombers. Frigates are a defensive unit who use their range to keep small ships away from my fleet.

I simply feel frigates are too slow to escort bombers, I don't want to almost double my time in-system due to the slower move speed when I'm making a small raiding attack.

I do bring frigates along on a medium weight attack, but that will see me having two control groups in the system, the fast group of fighter and bombers and the slow group of frigates escorting plasma sieges. (Plasma siege often being the first SS I build.)

Playstyle differences strike again.

D.

The problem with your playstyle (in my opinion), is that it's based on the overpoweredness of the Bomber and the underpoweredness of the Fighter.

Considering the power and effectiveness of the Bomber, its speed should be closer to the Frigate than the Fighter. Secondly, it makes no sense for the Fighters to escort the Bombers. The Frigate counters the Fighter, the Bomber's weakness, so why in the world would a Fighter be guarding them? Fighters don't counter the Bomber's natural enemy, this is unintuitive game design, it makes no sense.

Nobody is arguing that the Bomber isn't overpowered, or significantly better than the other two Triangle ships, the argument is that it's fine that way. And the explanation for that argument is, "Well it fits my playstyle".  Of course it does, it's the best unit. It HAS to fit your playstyle.

What if we changed Rock-Paper-Scissors and made the Rock blatantly better than the other two? What if choosing Rock when someone else chose Paper, caused the game to end in a draw? To lose as Rock your opponent would have to beat you with paper twice.

When some people noticed how overpowering Rock was compared to the other two, people like you might say, "But Rock fits my playstyle!"

Well of course it fits your playstyle, it's blatantly overpowered. How is that a good argument against changing it?

In Starcraft 2 PvP, Zealot beats Immortal beats Stalker beats Zealot. What if we buffed the Immortal until it was blatantly better than the other two and nerfed the Zealot? Would people stop building the Zealot? No, it's still good in certain situations. People might say "Zealots are a cheap way of defending my Immortal, that's their role". But you're missing the point Diazo. The point is that it's retarded that every strategy has to revolve around the Immortal. You are ruining the balance of the game, and the existence of many OTHER playstyles, because you don't want to have to change yours.

Refer to the 2 examples above. When any game using the Triangle balance mechanism becomes centered around 1 unit, all playstyles must involve that unit heavily. In other words, a great many other playstyles are omitted from the game as a result.

[Diazo]

The problem with your playstyle (in my opinion), is that it's based on the overpoweredness of the Bomber and the underpoweredness of the Fighter.

Considering the power and effectiveness of the Bomber, its speed should be closer to the Frigate than the Fighter. Secondly, it makes no sense for the Fighters to escort the Bombers. The Frigate counters the Fighter, the Bomber's weakness, so why in the world would a Fighter be guarding them? Fighters don't counter the Bomber's natural enemy, this is unintuitive game design, it makes no sense.

I see my playstyle as defined by the speed of the units. Does that mean I am leaving the unit that would protect my bombers best from their counter behind? On paper, yes.

In game I find that the higher move speed means I lose less units, and the units I have lost are cheaper to replace (fighters vs. frigates).

I'm assuming a tough raid here. If the system is weak enough that the frigates could in fact kill all enemy ships before they reached their own engagement range, the system is weak enough I would not be raiding with a fast strike force, I'd just dump my entire fleet into the system and clean up.

D.

[Wingflier]

But let's say the Bomber's speed was nerfed to halfway between the Frigate (44) and the Fighter (76), and the Fighter was buffed to be more of a threat to the Bomber than it currently is (whether through speed, damage, or something else).  Would you still bring Fighters with you instead of Frigates?  It seems odd that you have to bring the Bomber's counter with you to defend Bombers, not the Fighter's counter.

[Diazo]

The thing is, this is a tough raid which means speed triumphs.

You nerf the bomber's speed and that raid I would have done with a bomber/fighter pack now waits for my Raid Starships to build or I don't raid it, I neuter the system to reach my target.

Or I transport-drop a cap of bombers and write them off as dead if the target is high-value enough.

And keep in mind that fighters are the counter for bombers in the triangle, you run in to a lot of other ship types that want to kill your bombers also. A lot of those other ships are ones the frigates have attack multipliers against, but a lot are not.

But they are along as meat shields also, I would not want to use frigates as meat shields, they are almost as expensive as bombers.

I do also agree I would actually kill more AI ships if I brought along frigates instead of fighters, but I don't care how many fleet ships I kill. I care about getting my target dead, which the bombers have the attack multiplier against, and how many ships survive to make it back to my own systems.

In my experience, it is more resource effective to raid with fighters + bombers then it is to do the same raid with bombers + frigates. How that compares to other people's play style is up for debate.

D.

[Nodor]

This argument seems to be breaking down over two different tactical situations.

Diazo is focused on speed to target.  Getting past 4+ Ion cannons to deliver the damage to the target is all about getting your ships within range ASAP.   Having a bunch of fighters to suck up shots from Ion cannons so that the bombers can get in range and start doing damage..

Wingflier appears to be focused on DPS delivered to target once in range.   Beating down high HP shields/ships forts etc.   This may mean that the Ion cannons have been dealt with by snipers or swarmer units.  However, fighters, are second rate cover providers compared to swarmer units - and snipers don't need cover as they have range. 

In other words, the uselessness of the fighter is dependent upon your other picks/tactics. 

In my perfect world loadout where my "bonus ships" are snipers, sentinel frigates, and Blade Spawners, fighters are useless on offense.  However, should I have picked something like parasites or say the tank as my starting ship, fighters are a fantastic fleet complement due to their energy, ok speed, and production costs.  They are a good "average" ship.     

Nothing special and no great weakness, can be a very efficient tool in a specialized arsenal that needs "something" to try to cover the hole it creates.