Discussion about Different Playstyles

[Wingflier]

It is more of illustration of why the fighter does have a role, and why you want it changed.

Nobody said that Fighter doesn't have a role.  It's just not nearly as good at good at its role as, for example, the Bomber is at its role.

On paper the triangle is balanced (Keith came to these unit stats using a formula during the 4.0 - 5.0 shift). If you consider cost things get murky because of how players value cost. But if really want to buff a unit more then 5 - 10% you need a tradeoff of some sort.

Well balancing things on paper only goes so far.  How things play out on paper, and how things play out in-game, can be (and often are) completely different.  Also, a lot of things have changed since 5.0 was released, including the economic state of the game. 

If a unit is underpowered for its cost effectiveness, you don't need a tradeoff.  I think that with the current state of the game, the Fighter is underpowered for its cost effectiveness, because cost doesn't just come in the form of resources.  Upgrading a unit means there is a cost in knowledge as well, as well as a cost in the things you COULD have spent knowledge on otherwise. 

To this end, the Fighter is not worth their cost in Knowledge.  They are worth their cost in resources only as a cheap meatshield, light DPS unit.  However, you could replace the Fighter with almost anything and have a similar effect.  Extra DPS + Cap Health is extra DPS + Cap Health, that doesn't make a unit good.

So for fighters, if you want to increase their power across the board, with the evidence players still use them as-is,

Well god, they use them because they're free.  You could replace the Fighters with MLRS ships, Tachyon MicroFighters, Autocannon Minipods, or pretty much any other bonus ship and people would still build them.  It's an extra source of damage and health for your army, that doesn't mean they're good.

You say people are using them, but they're only using them to the extent that they're free.  Some people don't even upgrade their Fighters past MKI, and most people don't upgrade them past MKII.  If they are in a good place, then why aren't they worth upgrading all the way?

**With any net buff to the fighter, you would have to buff any fighter like craft as well. If you puruse the idea of buff the frigate too, then you have to balance those like craft. And before one says "fighters are weak but frigates are fine" I can counter "fighters are fine but frigates are weak". Who would be more right?

Well I don't think anyone thinks the Tachyon Microfighters, Laser Gatlings, or Raiders are particularly overpowered at this moment.  I don't see a problem with that.

Also, Frigates are fine because they perform their role extremely well, and are sometimes worth upgrading to MKIV in certain situations.  They net the most kills of any of the Triangle ships every game by far, and kill things from such a long distance that they are immune to counter-fire and useful on defense in a great many scenarios.

Anyway, I'm finished discussing this with you because I get the impression you just want to argue about it.  You're free to make your opinion noted in the poll I'm making soon.

Thank you for the discussion.

[chemical_art]

It is more of illustration of why the fighter does have a role, and why you want it changed.

Nobody said that Fighter doesn't have a role.  It's just not nearly as good at good at its role as, for example, the Bomber is at its role.

And as been said repeatedly, the fighter is a 1/3 of the cost of the bomber. If the fighter can perform its role as good as the bomber, it needs to cost the same as the bomber. Since your playstyle doesn't care about cost, you think therefore the fighter is bad, while others think it is fine

On paper the triangle is balanced (Keith came to these unit stats using a formula during the 4.0 - 5.0 shift). If you consider cost things get murky because of how players value cost. But if really want to buff a unit more then 5 - 10% you need a tradeoff of some sort.

Well balancing things on paper only goes so far.  How things play out on paper, and how things play out in-game, can be (and often are) completely different.  Also, a lot of things have changed since 5.0 was released, including the economic state of the game. 

If a unit is underpowered for its cost effectiveness, you don't need a tradeoff.  I think that with the current state of the game, the Fighter is underpowered for its cost effectiveness, because cost doesn't just come in the form of resources.  Upgrading a unit means there is a cost in knowledge as well, as well as a cost in the things you COULD have spent knowledge on otherwise. 

You have something about research. But for resources the fighter is very cost efficent since it is as good or better in every way except range and its multipliers for 1/3 of the cost.

To this end, the Fighter is not worth their cost in Knowledge.  They are worth their cost in resources only as a cheap meatshield, light DPS unit.  However, you could replace the Fighter with almost anything and have a similar effect.  Extra DPS + Cap Health is extra DPS + Cap Health, that doesn't make a unit good.

Except those are extra ships, which are supposed to be better, and they are not as cheap as the fighter for sure.

So for fighters, if you want to increase their power across the board, with the evidence players still use them as-is,

Well god, they use them because they're free.  You could replace the Fighters with MLRS ships, Tachyon MicroFighters, Autocannon Minipods, or pretty much any other bonus ship and people would still build them.  It's an extra source of damage and health for your army, that doesn't mean they're good.

You say people are using them, but they're only using them to the extent that they're free.  Some people don't even upgrade their Fighters past MKI, and most people don't upgrade them past MKII.  If they are in a good place, then why aren't they worth upgrading all the way?

For the same reason I never unlock frigates II. And many don't unlock frigates III They don't fit play style.

**With any net buff to the fighter, you would have to buff any fighter like craft as well. If you puruse the idea of buff the frigate too, then you have to balance those like craft. And before one says "fighters are weak but frigates are fine" I can counter "fighters are fine but frigates are weak". Who would be more right?

Well I don't think anyone thinks the Tachyon Microfighters, Laser Gatlings, or Raiders are particularly overpowered at this moment.  I don't see a problem with that.

And those are all ultra-high cap ships, which Keith made a thread about. It's a sign that higher cap units need adjusting, not the fighter role itself. For example none complains about the bullet proof fighter

Also, Frigates are fine because they perform their role extremely well, and are sometimes worth upgrading to MKIV in certain situations.  They net the most kills of any of the Triangle ships every game by far, and kill things from such a long distance that they are immune to counter-fire and useful on defense in a great many scenarios.

See above. If it fits your playstyle. Frigates get a high kill count because they get things with higher caps, which is why bombers also get lower kills because they hit things with lower caps. They should perform slightly better on offense because they have weak defenses in term of health and speed.

Anyway, I'm finished discussing this with you because I get the impression you just want to argue about it.  You're free to make your opinion noted in the poll I'm making soon.

Thank you for the discussion.

You are free to not discuss it with me, but just because you don't like my opinion doesn't make me want to argue for the sake of arguing. We are all free to express our opinions

[Diazo]

Take care please, this is how the last almost flame war got started.

These last two posts highlight the differences in opinion.

At one end of the spectrum you have those who think fighters are fine as they are and the fact they are so cheap is one of their strengths and so any buff to the fighter would have to also including making them more expensive.

At the other end you have the position that the fighters are broken and they need a buff and because they are broken they should get buffed without increasing their resource cost.

And then where an individual falls on the spectrum between those two positions depends on their opinion/playstyle/etc.

(Note that I have not seen anyone in this thread advocating either of the extremes I listed, those are just the two ends of the spectrum I see this discussion taking place on.)

Remember that regardless of how different someone else's opinion is, that does not make it wrong.

D.

[Wingflier]

Don't worry, I was done with the discussion.

We'll all be free to express our opinions on the poll.