Discussion about Different Playstyles

[Diazo]

I will agree there is something of a Sledgehamme-Paper-Scissors going on at the moment.

I also agree that it really needs the armor/hull type rebalance to actually fix, I'm not convinced a "patch fix" like this is a good thing in the long run.

I say this because right now the game is about bases and strike forces. You have your own bases (systems) and the AI has his. Each side sends strike groups out to kill the enemy base (using bombers as that is their design role) and defending their base (by turrets in the player controlled systems). Everything else is just gravy, the fact that I think I could probably win a game with just bombers and turrets on diff 7 just highlights this fact.

Having said that, I think the game is in a pretty good state (in my opinion) and I don't want to be throwing big changes at it in non-expansion related stuff.

Which is why I countered with the small changes I did. I do not want to nerf bombers DPS, it takes long enough to kill high HP stuff as it is (fortresses, force fields) that I don't want to nerf bombers DPS at all. (You are aware your numbers as posted would reduce a bombers DPS against a fortress to 83% of what is currently in the game?)

To actually nerf bombers I would reduce their armor. This would make bombers take significantly more damage from enemy fleet ships while only taking a little bit more from high-damage defenses. (They could get a small health buff in return if needed.) This makes enemy fleet ships a bigger danger to your bomber strike squad giving you more reasons to use fighters in their intended role of killing enemy fleet ships.

The other change of increasing the fighters range to slightly larger than that of a bombers would also have a decent sized impact on the game I think as fighters would now be able to engage earlier (and before they've taken as many losses).

Add in a 5% speed buff for fighters and we've got some small, but decent tweaks to fighters and bombers without actually changing how they are used.

D.

[Minotaar]

Yes, a redistribution of the hull types would be great, it's not going to happen for at least 3 months, probably longer. I don't see what's so bad in the meantime about nerfing Bombers and buffing Fighters.

The only thing your proposed changes are going to accomplish is to turn Fighters into bad cheap Bombers.
That's the only thing that I can conclude from you saying that one doesn't need Fighters, but one can't win without Bombers. If the Fighters can do a reasonable Bomber impersonation, you will just use the Fighters as you use Bombers. Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about when you are saying this will create new playstyles. It will only create new bombers. Youngling tigers, if you must, but still bombers.

This is why the only way to solve this problem (assuming that it IS a problem, which I think it is, but not nearly so much as you make it out to be) is a hull-type revamp and putting more emphasis on fleet combat, which are things Diazo pointed out. Not, using your analogy, turning everything into hammers to adapt to the world of nails.

[Wingflier]

Yes, a redistribution of the hull types would be great, it's not going to happen for at least 3 months, probably longer. I don't see what's so bad in the meantime about nerfing Bombers and buffing Fighters.

The only thing your proposed changes are going to accomplish is to turn Fighters into bad cheap Bombers.
That's the only thing that I can conclude from you saying that one doesn't need Fighters, but one can't win without Bombers. If the Fighters can do a reasonable Bomber impersonation, you will just use the Fighters as you use Bombers. Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about when you are saying this will create new playstyles. It will only create new bombers. Youngling tigers, if you must, but still bombers.

This is why the only way to solve this problem (assuming that it IS a problem, which I think it is, but not nearly so much as you make it out to be) is a hull-type revamp and putting more emphasis on fleet combat, which are things Diazo pointed out. Not, using your analogy, turning everything into hammers to adapt to the world of nails.

Gah, in my iteration bombers still do 2.2x more to their best targets as Fighters. Bombers damage is only lowered by 20% against its bonuses, it's actually 25% better against everything else. That's not even really a nerf, it's a rebalance.

Fighters aren't just glorified Bombers in my iteration, they are cheap, all-purpose units that excel at a variety of tasks but aren't specialized for anything.

The fact that this entire community can only look at the game through the lens of bombers - whether Fighters are supporting them or emulating them by being buffed, is just an indicator of how bad the balance has become.

If you can only judge the usefulness of a fighter by constantly comparing it to the bomber, then you are the reason I made this thread. Just because YOUR entire playstyle revolves around the bomber, doesn't mean everyone else's should have to.

In my iteration, fighters aren't just glorified Bombers, they are all purpose machines as Fighters are in any classical sense. No, they don't just exist to escort or be meat shields. If that's how you want to use them fine, buffing them won't take that away.

[Diazo]

Okay, our vision for what the fighter should be is totally different.

You are arguing the fighter should be a square peg, I'm arguing it should be a round peg and we are trying to jam it into a hole made of play-doh so either will fit depending on who the devs listen to.

My best summary of our positions are as follows: (Let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth.)

Me: Rock-Paper-Scissors balancing that is explicit enough that one side of the triangle can not fill in for the others.
IE: A strike force of Fighters/Bombers/Frigates gets jumped enroute by fighters and so loses it's bombers but nothing else. They can no longer destroy their target (a force field) in a reasonable amount of time and so the strike force has to turn back and try again once the bombers are built.

You: Rock-Paper-Scissors balancing that is softer, other sides of the triangle can compensate if one of the sides is missing.
IE: A strike force of Fighters/Bombers/Frigates gets jumped enroute by fighters and so loses it's bombers but nothing else. They can still destroy their target (a force field) in a reasonable amount of time (2 to 3 times longer then if the bombers were still along) and so the strike destroys its target.

The reason I support the explicit balancing for AI War is that you can see everything. There is no way for the AI to jump your strike force unexpectedly and destroy your bombers. If it does so you as a commander have screwed up somewhere and the AI deserves to be able to repel your strike.

D.

[Wingflier]

Before I respond to that, let's get something straight:  Rock-paper-scissors doesn't exist in real life.  It's a very black and white/polarized way of looking at combat or balance.

Typically, games that adhere TOO much to this philosophy are bad.  I don't know if you ever played Empire Earth, but it had a very simple rock-paper-scissors type combat system, and it felt awful. 

In other words, I think we should use RPS as a guideline, but not the holy grail of balance.  There are other factors to take into consideration than just balance - realism, strategy, and fun.  I think Rock-Paper-Scissors works great in a vacuum, but it definitely excludes realism, cuts down on strategy, and takes away the fun (this is my personal opinion obviously).

To give an example, I see no reason why Fighters wouldn't counter other Fighters.  It's what they do in pretty much every Sci-Fi Universe imaginable; so I guess we're going to take that away in AI War because Rock-Paper-Scissors is better?  No, it's not better.  Fighters are perfect for countering Fighters - DOGFIGHTS, I mean come on, where's your sense of wonder and imagination?  Does this fit the perfect RPS mechanic?  Absolutely not, but it sure makes a lot more sense, and makes the game a lot more interesting, than if Fighters are only good at stopping Bombers.

In my iteration, Fighters are much stronger against each other (you could even say they counter each other to an extent) than they are now. 

In the two scenarios you present, the Fighters kill the Bombers before they reach the target.  However, your scenario with my changes was unrealistic.  The Fighters in my iteration do the same amount of damage to Bombers, but TAKE much more damage from Fighters.  Therefore, many of the Bombers would actually survive.

Let's look at the two scenarios again:

1. Current Balance - Player just uses boring fleetball, Fighters come in range and kill all the Bombers and die.  Mission Failed.

2. Current Balance - Fighters start coming in range, player send his own Fighters to intercept, allied Fighters do joke damage, all the Bombers die.  Mission Failed.

3. My Balance - Fighters start coming in range, player sends his own Fighters to intercept.  Allied Fighters do quite a bit of damage before the enemy Fighters even get in range of the Bombers.  Enemy Fighters are cleaned up with half of the Bomber fleet still remaining.

Now which one of these 3 scenarios is more interesting, strategic, and fun?  In WHICH scenario does the player have to think the most, and through his strategic and tactical decisions, come out on top?

Sure, even with my balance, you could leave your Fighters in the fleetball and lose most your Bombers, but that's YOUR fault.  Now that's punishing a commander that screwed up; if I were supposed to keep my Bombers alive by just keeping them in a huge fleetball (as you're suggesting), then there's something seriously wrong with how punishment of bad decisions works in this game.

[Minotaar]

Gah, in my iteration bombers still do 2.2x more to their best targets as Fighters. Bombers damage is only lowered by 20% against its bonuses, it's actually 25% better against everything else. That's not even really a nerf, it's a rebalance.

Fighters aren't just glorified Bombers in my iteration, they are cheap, all-purpose units that excel at a variety of tasks but aren't specialized for anything.

The fact that this entire community can only look at the game through the lens of bombers - whether Fighters are supporting them or emulating them by being buffed, is just an indicator of how bad the balance has become.

If you can only judge the usefulness of a fighter by constantly comparing it to the bomber, then you are the reason I made this thread. Just because YOUR entire playstyle revolves around the bomber, doesn't mean everyone else's should have to.

In my iteration, fighters aren't just glorified Bombers, they are all purpose machines as Fighters are in any classical sense. No, they don't just exist to escort or be meat shields. If that's how you want to use them fine, buffing them won't take that away.

Excuse me, but you are the one saying that Bombers are the only necessary fleetship, and pretty much everything you say the proposed new Fighter will be capable of (killing guardposts for example) is currently done by bombers. You are saying that what the Fighter currently does is irrelevant, why does it become relevant now? Even with 50% extra damage they are still killing things that you don't need killed. So then really only the fighter's bomber side is what you care about. You don't appreciate their tanking ability or cheap cost.

My playstyle is about my bonus ships and adapting to the map and the opposition, not "bombers". I could care less about the bombers. If not for the two core FFs and the fort on the homeworlds, I wouldn't bother with them.

Yes, fighters become all-purpose in your version... it's just that you mostly want them to kill structures, anyway. Interception? Please. You don't intercept units in AI War, unless they're EMP Guardians/Raid Starships. You meet them already in position, hold them in place and pummel on them.

And the whole "classical sense" is subject to change based on the source and is mostly irrelevant to the balancing anyway. In Homeworld or SW: Empire At War fighters exist to counter bombers and if it works, there's nothing wrong with that.

As an alternative, I propose changing hull types on just Guardians so most (not all) of them are weak to Fighters. That'd give them an explicit and important purpose on offense and doesn't require a complete overhaul (for now).

Oh, yes, about that.

1. Current Balance - Player just uses boring fleetball, Fighters come in range and kill all the Bombers and die.  Mission Failed.

2. Current Balance - Fighters start coming in range, player send his own Fighters to intercept, allied Fighters do joke damage, all the Bombers die.  Mission Failed.

3. My Balance - Fighters start coming in range, player sends his own Fighters to intercept.  Allied Fighters do quite a bit of damage before the enemy Fighters even get in range of the Bombers.  Enemy Fighters are cleaned up with half of the Bomber fleet still remaining.

You could, you know, pull back the bombers, instead of trying to change the balance so that you don't have to.

[Wingflier]

Excuse me, but you are the one saying that Bombers are the only necessary fleetship, and pretty much everything you say the proposed new Fighter will be capable of (killing guardposts for example) is currently done by bombers. You are saying that what the Fighter currently does is irrelevant, why does it become relevant now?

No I'm not saying Bombers are the only necessary Fleetship, Frigates are pretty useful too.  However yes, I don't think the Fighter has much of a role except as a cheap meatshield.

I don't think that's okay.

Even with 50% extra damage they are still killing things that you don't need killed. So then really only the fighter's bomber side is what you care about. You don't appreciate their tanking ability or cheap cost.

I do appreciate it, I just don't think it should be the ONLY thing they are good for.  If they were really balanced with the other two, they would be worth commonly upgrading to MKIV right?  Right? 

These two attributes are good, they just aren't enough.  I'm not trying to steal the Bomber's thunder with the Fighters, I'm just trying to give them a new role that doesn't INVOLVE the Bomber.  Classically, Fighters are like the soldiers in an Earth army, they are cheap, powerful, and all-purpose, if a bit weak when focused.  To me, that seems the most intuitive and best.  Giving them an extra 50% damage doesn't make them good against "just guardposts", I don't know where you're getting that.  That's your bomber-centric attitude coming out again.

My playstyle is about my bonus ships and adapting to the map and the opposition, not "bombers". I could care less about the bombers. If not for the two core FFs and the fort on the homeworlds, I wouldn't bother with them.

Mmmkay, cool.  Well I was about to play a 9/9 game with 5/5 Advanced Hybrids without using Fighters AT ALL, to show people how unnecessary they are to win.  You should play the same game, without using Bombers (or Bomber equivalent bonus ships).  Tell me how that turns out for you 

Yes, fighters become all-purpose in your version... it's just that you mostly want them to kill structures, anyway. Interception? Please. You don't intercept units in AI War, unless they're EMP Guardians/Raid Starships. You meet them already in position, hold them in place and pummel on them.

Once again, we're back to the differing playstyles.  I personally can think of lots of situations where I would use Fighters for intercepting, raiding, and defense.  Kiting tactics could be a lot better in my iteration where Fighters were faster and more powerful.

Just because you only use Fighters as escorts and glorified meatshields, doesn't mean everybody else should have to.  I mean you could still use them that way in my iteration if you wanted.

And the whole "classical sense" is subject to change based on the source and is mostly irrelevant to the balancing anyway. In Homeworld or SW: Empire At War fighters exist to counter bombers and if it works, there's nothing wrong with that.

Well realism should never be irrelevant to game design or balancing.  I mean it shouldn't be the FIRST priority, but the more realistic a game is, the easier it is to get involved with in and the more intuitive it is for the player.  I didn't play Empire at War (from what I remember it got pretty bad reviews, in large part because of its oversimplified Rock-Paper-Scissors balance mechanics, in the Star Wars Universe no less), but in Homeworld, Fighters countered each other as well.

As an alternative, I propose changing hull types on just Guardians so most (not all) of them are weak to Fighters. That'd give them an explicit and important purpose on offense and doesn't require a complete overhaul (for now).

I support this idea.

[Diazo]

Before I respond to that, let's get something straight:  Rock-paper-scissors doesn't exist in real life.  It's a very black and white/polarized way of looking at combat or balance.

Except that balance in the game is setup around Fighters> Bombers > Frigates > Fighters so Rock-Paper-Scissors exists, and it's going to continue to exist regardless of any changes made to the Fighter and/or Bomber.

It's clear we disagree on how to go about this and our opinions are so far apart that we are not going to convince each other so instead, here's my mental image of an "ideal balance" situation.

Bomber: Structures and defenses killer.
Fighter: Fleet Ship Killer.

An enemy guard post under a Force Field is the target, it's defended by several fleet ships. (The AI Fleet Ships would actually come out to attack the strike force en route, not camp underneath the FF.

Strike force of mixed fighters/bombers.

Assume rough parity between the two sides for example purposes.

Your strike force is half way and the AI sends its fleet ships to intercept.

You then send your fighters ahead to intercept the AI's fleet ships, probably lose most/all of your fighters but lose none or very few of your bombers as they finish the AIs fleet ships off, but there are enough bombers left to carry through with the strike.

Having cleared the AIs fleet ships your strike force is able to return to your own system without any further losses.

To make this work, AI fleet ships have to be a threat to your bombers so that your own fighters have a purpose, which is why one of my suggestions is to reduce bomber armor to make fleet ships more of a threat.

I'm also puzzled by this.

2. Current Balance - Fighters start coming in range, player send his own Fighters to intercept, allied Fighters do joke damage, all the Bombers die.  Mission Failed.

This is standard operating procedure for me. Well, kind of. I send the fighters in a second or two ahead of my bombers to eat the Alpha Strike and then bring the bombers into the melee to take of the guardians/guard posts that are present while my fighters and the AIs fleet ships have a big furball around them.

This is because as opposed to my ideal possibility above, in game I don't get intercepted, it's me descending on a guard post with its defending guardians and fleet ships still present.

I am actually kind of puzzled. From the way you are talking you seem to be running into a lot fewer AI fleet ships then I do. How many ships does the XXX Enemy Ships in System the top left corner usually display when you launch an attack? Except for the really early game I'm almost always above 300 and 500-600 is quite common.

I think I play a slower game then you so reinforcements have more time to build up but I see my fighters killing things when combat happens, you seem to feel fighters are almost worthless at the moment.

My playstyle is about my bonus ships and adapting to the map and the opposition, not "bombers". I could care less about the bombers. If not for the two core FFs and the fort on the homeworlds, I wouldn't bother with them.

Mmmkay, cool.  Well I was about to play a 9/9 game with 5/5 Advanced Hybrids without using Fighters AT ALL, to show people how unnecessary they are to win.  You should play the same game, without using Bombers (or Bomber equivalent bonus ships).  Tell me how that turns out for you 

I disagree this proves anything. Because you can bait AI fleet ships onto your worlds you have alternate means of killing them so you can play a game without the Fighters unit. You are still building "fighters" however, they are just named different things, they perform the same role as the unit Fighter in killing fleet ships.

If you can do the same without building any turrets (being the 'fighters' by another name in this case) then I will concede you have a point .

I personally can think of lots of situations where I would use Fighters for intercepting, raiding, and defense.  Kiting tactics could be a lot better in my iteration where Fighters were faster and more powerful.

And this is making the bomber and frigate weaker.

Yes, fighters should be for intercepting (which does not happen enough in the game at the moment.)
Bombers are for raiding, Frigates are for kiting with their huge range advantage. Making the fighter able to raid and kite is weakening the bomber and frigate by encroaching on their roles in the game.

As an alternative, I propose changing hull types on just Guardians so most (not all) of them are weak to Fighters. That'd give them an explicit and important purpose on offense and doesn't require a complete overhaul (for now).

I support this idea.

Something like this is workable, it is really applying the armor/hull type rebalance to just the guardians instead of the entire game however.


This is going to be my last post tonight, I'm now offline until tomorrow.

For me, the bottom line is that I agree that the fighters get overshadowed because there are other units in the game that also compete for the same role, that of killing enemy fleet ships.

That does not make the fighters broken or underpowered. Flat out buffing the fighters stats will start encroaching on the roles of other ship types in the game.

Which is why things like increasing the fighters attack range to match the bombers and giving it a slight speed boost are things I support. Both of these things help it to kill enemy fleet ships better and don't have the fighter encroaching on other ships roles.

D.

[Kjara]

There seems to be a bit of a disagreement (partially due to playstyles) on what role the fighter should take.  Without a clear role, its hard to figure out how it should be changed.  Everyone seems to agree that it's current incarnation is at least quite good at killing bombers, but besides that I don't think there's much agreement on what its role should be.  To me it seems to currently be a one trick pony, it kills bombers, but in every other setting its somewhat suboptimal when compared to other options (and perhaps this is the key, it doesn't seem to be a good enough jack of all trades to make up for that).  Thus one solution would be to make it a better jack of all trades without really trying to increase its strength against any particular unit type. 

One claim is that it is intended to be a "fleetship" killer but at least in my mind the current numbers don't really back this up.  On the offense I often find myself having the ai's forces hitting mine in waves often with breaks in between, so the bomber's longer range and higher cooldown alpha strike against even ships it doesn't have a bonus against to be more useful than the fighters shorter range but higher sustained dps.  Additionally, the bomber has almost as many fleet types that it gets a bonus against.   Of the three, I actually I find the frigate to be the best fleet ship killer as it has the bonuses against fleet ship types, a larger multiplier than the fighter, good range and a strong alpha strike.  For mobile defense (except in a few overwhelming situations), I again find frigates to be much better than fighters as they can kite things and kill many of them with little to no retaliation, esp when combined with logistic command stations.  Add in riots and plasma siege and gravity or tractors turrets for more slowing and you can get great k/d ratios. 

In my current game the kill numbers are as follows(mkII's unlocked of fighters/bombers/frigates/bombards):

Fighter 322
Bomber 422
Frigate 1082
Plasma Siege Starship 803
Bombard 1862
Heavy Beam Cannon 552
Missile Turret 728

Fighters currently also fill the role of damage sinks, but poorly.  Really only good for eating alpha strikes as most units in this game target things that they are good at killing.  I've had far better luck  using real damage sinks (aka ff) as my starting unit.  Being able to eat alpha strikes only really matters if the forces hitting you are small enough that you will kill them before they get in too many attacks.  Again, in this case, frigates do a much better job of killing most of the ships before they reach attack range.

The one role they do shine in is killing bombers, mainly on defense but also reasonably on offense.  This is at the moment an important role, as bombers tend to be the largest threat the ai can send at you since they are so good at ending the game or killing irreplaceable buildings.  This seems to be the reason why I suspect some consider the fighter a defense force, merely because it is a hard counter to the biggest offensive threat.

However, many turrets are also a fairly good counter to bombers as well.  Are turrets a replacement for fighters?  In the fighter's current incarnation, the answer seems to be at least partially yes.  While I tend to like to have fighters on the offense to kill bombers (which kill my frigates), they are generally nice, but not really needed.  However,  the fact that turrets are a defense only unit means that they really need to be quite a bit stronger than any unit you can take on the offense or no one would bother to unlock them.  This suggests to me that giving fighters a stronger role on the offense might be better than trying to make it a defensive unit.


On a side note, the bomber threat means that fighters are the only merc force I tend to build up before the end game, as parking a goodly number of merc fighers on your homeworld can mean the difference between victory and defeat.  Plus, since usually I only have to risk them against mono-bomber groups, their losses tend to be low, which is important for making mercs cost effective.


Right now bombers counter a large number of things as well as being the only real counter to many of their targets.   Bombers kill defenses, many of the starships and larger types (golems, etc), and many of the long range fleetships (due to them killing frigate and frigate like special units).  Currently bombers are both versatile and irreplaceable, while fighters are neither.  Thus, another option would be to move one or two of the bomber's bonus to fighters:   

Would moving command grade make the game too easy for mono-wave players?  Considering that the most vital structures in the game are command grade, one interpretation of this armor type could be a choice of a type of armor that is strong against as many types as possible without exposing any particular weaknesses, aka a minimax solution against the set of possible attack types.  Having the fighter be a soft counter to this would seem to reasonably fit in theme with a jack of all trades image for the fighter.  With current command station hps would a good chunk of bombers would still take down a cc pretty fast even without the 6x mult?

Other options:  Artillery can't be moved without messing up the triangle unless we change frigates (and possibly some of the frigate derived ships) to something else.  Another possibility would be to move heavy over to give fighters a few of the starships (fleet/riot/leech) back. 

[Wingflier]

I disagree this proves anything. Because you can bait AI fleet ships onto your worlds you have alternate means of killing them so you can play a game without the Fighters unit. You are still building "fighters" however, they are just named different things, they perform the same role as the unit Fighter in killing fleet ships.

If Turrets perform the Fighter's role better than the Fighters, then Fighters don't HAVE a role.  If you don't NEED Fighters to win a 9/9 game, then there is something seriously wrong with the game's design.  All 3 Triangle ships should be necessary for success.

To further put what you've said throughout this thread to the test, my opponents in the 9/9 game are going to be The Mad Bomber and the Sledgehammer.  Since Fighters are supposedly so great on defense, I should need them to win (especially since I'll be facing so many Bomber types).  If Fighters aren't necessary in this scenario (the scenario that YOU say they excel in), then they simply aren't necessary.  I don't know how much more clear it can be.

If you can do the same without building any turrets (being the 'fighters' by another name in this case) then I will concede you have a point .

Turrets aren't Fighters.  Turrets can't move, and they can't be rebuilt in a combat situation.  They are useless on offense as well.  If Turrets are replacing the Fighter's role, then the Fighter's role needs to change.

And this is making the bomber and frigate weaker.

It's making the Bomber weaker, it's not making the Frigate weaker.  Any buff to the Fighter is an indirect buff to the Frigates, since Frigates hard counter Fighters.

For me, the bottom line is that I agree that the fighters get overshadowed because there are other units in the game that also compete for the same role, that of killing enemy fleet ships.

Once again, Fighters aren't even that great at killing Fleet Ships.

Frigates do FIVE TIMES as much damage as Fighters do to 6 different types of Fleet Ships.  If you look at the statistics in any given game (including the statistics in the post above me), you will see that Frigates are much more capable and effective at anti-Fleetship than are Fighters.  Fighters are a glorified meat shield and that's it.

That does not make the fighters broken or underpowered. Flat out buffing the fighters stats will start encroaching on the roles of other ship types in the game.

You know what, it's okay for roles to overlap a bit.  When it comes down to it, all 3 Triangle ships have the same role:  Kill shit.

Frigates and Bombers are more specialized against smaller and bigger targets, respectively.  Fighters are more all-purpose, but don't excel against any target.  Does that make them overlap with the other two a bit?  Absolutely, but just like a foot soldier, a Fighter is the backbone of every Army.  If they weren't cheap, versatile, and all-purpose, you wouldn't use them obviously.

There seems to be a bit of a disagreement (partially due to playstyles) on what role the fighter should take.  Without a clear role, its hard to figure out how it should be changed.  Everyone seems to agree that it's current incarnation is at least quite good at killing bombers, but besides that I don't think there's much agreement on what its role should be.  To me it seems to currently be a one trick pony, it kills bombers, but in every other setting its somewhat suboptimal when compared to other options (and perhaps this is the key, it doesn't seem to be a good enough jack of all trades to make up for that).  Thus one solution would be to make it a better jack of all trades without really trying to increase its strength against any particular unit type. 

This is exactly what I've suggested.  I simply want a 50% increase in the Fighter's current raw DPS.  I even nerfed the multipliers to compensate, to the point that they do NO more damage to their bonus hull types (or bombers) than they did before.  Somehow, people are horrified at this idea, and I can't understand why.  Even if it does turn out badly (I'm sure it won't, it'll just make them moderately more useful than a glorified meatshield), we can just change it the next patch.

Literally, with the Bomber being the most overpowered Fleetship by far, Diazo would rather NERF the Frigate to buff the Fighters than even touch the Bomber, or even just buff the Fighters while leaving the other two alone.  I don't know what more indication of a blatant resistance to change/dependence on an archaic balancing mechanism you need.

People continue to offer examples of where the Fighter is useful - there is no debating that the Fighter can be useful.  The freaking Raiders can be useful, but that doesn't mean I would unlock them as my bonus ship type with so many better options.  You would think that with the Bomber being so disproportionately good, people would be begging for a Fighter buff.  But no, let's not do anything to change the game.  I wouldn't have to alter my playstyle the slightest bit or open up new playstyles for other players who might want the game to be more than a bomber-centric blob-fest.

If we buff the Fighter damage by 50% (and nerf its multipliers accordingly), what is the WORST thing that can happen?  You've got a ship that's a little too cost effective.  Woo.  Does the effectiveness of Bombers suddenly fall off the face of the Earth?  Do Frigates suddenly stop firing missiles and start shooting rainbows?  I mean we're acting like buffing Fighters will be the apocalypse for AI War, the end of fun as we know it.

Here's what will really happen if we make my changes:
1. People will start upgrading Fighters and Frigates to MKIII and IV more often.
2. Bombers won't be the focus of the entire fleet composition anymore.
3. Various moaning and complaining from a few people that they have to change their playstyles a little bit.
4. People get used to the change and realize it was actually for the better.
5. Hull types get addressed in the far future and the whole thing is rebalanced properly anyway.

I haven't seen a good argument against it.  The only argument I see is, "But then what use will my Bombers have?"  "Fighters will replace my Bombers!"  As if buffing Fighters is going to somehow cause the player to never use Bombers again.  You can't win.

[Kjara]

@Wingflier

Oh, I agree that your suggested changes are one way to achieve a more jack of all trades fighter.  I was just trying to offer a couple of other alternative ideas as well.

Additionally, I wonder if part of why Diazo feels that fighters are not too weak is that I seem to recall him saying that he often doesn't bring their counter, frigates, on the offense, so enemy fighters are more likely to actually make it into firing range against his bombers in numbers.   I find that enemy fighters tend to evaporate before they get into striking distance in many cases.  Of course I'm somewhat biased as I tend to value range and engine damage over speed.

[doctorfrog]

I'm tempted to start a Mantis to change the names of fighters to "meat shields."

This is preposterous! These meat shields are meat shields! *walls of text*

[Wingflier]

I'm just baffled that Diazo can even get away with saying that each ship should have its own role in one breath, then say that the Fighter counters Fleet Ships in the next.

Then what in the world does the Frigate in Diazo's universe?  Shoot down stray meteors?

It's okay for the ships' roles to overlap a bit. I would rather have that then have a glorified meat shield masquerading as an anti-fleet ship.

[Minotaar]

Mmmkay, cool.  Well I was about to play a 9/9 game with 5/5 Advanced Hybrids without using Fighters AT ALL, to show people how unnecessary they are to win.  You should play the same game, without using Bombers (or Bomber equivalent bonus ships).  Tell me how that turns out for you 
I don't think we need 30 man-hours to prove that an RPG is, in fact, a better anti-tank weapon than a machine gun.
Not that I won't do it at some point anyway, since I think the siege starships need some love...

I am actually kind of puzzled. From the way you are talking you seem to be running into a lot fewer AI fleet ships then I do. How many ships does the XXX Enemy Ships in System the top left corner usually display when you launch an attack? Except for the really early game I'm almost always above 300 and 500-600 is quite common.
I think I play a slower game then you so reinforcements have more time to build up but I see my fighters killing things when combat happens, you seem to feel fighters are almost worthless at the moment.

In the 10/10 game I'm playing right now I have yet to deal with more than 350 ships on a single planet, by the 12:00 mark. The only planets that get reinforcements get emptied out by CPAs every 2.5 hours, and my fleet is constantly 3-4 hops deep into enemy territory, where there isn't much resistance. This one is probably down to playstyle, yes.

I personally can think of lots of situations where I would use Fighters for intercepting, raiding, and defense.  Kiting tactics could be a lot better in my iteration where Fighters were faster and more powerful.

And this is making the bomber and frigate weaker.

Yes, fighters should be for intercepting (which does not happen enough in the game at the moment.)
Bombers are for raiding, Frigates are for kiting with their huge range advantage. Making the fighter able to raid and kite is weakening the bomber and frigate by encroaching on their roles in the game.

What he said. Why does the game need an all-purpose ship that's good at everything? It doesn't have one right now.

As an alternative, I propose changing hull types on just Guardians so most (not all) of them are weak to Fighters. That'd give them an explicit and important purpose on offense and doesn't require a complete overhaul (for now).

I support this idea.

Something like this is workable, it is really applying the armor/hull type rebalance to just the guardians instead of the entire game however.

Really, I think that would mostly be enough. I don't want the hull values to become too arbitrary. Superweapon games can still be the bomber's playground. The Guardians represent most of the AI's defensive power in a normal game, giving them from bombers to fighters would shift the focus enough, I think.

Frigates do FIVE TIMES as much damage as Fighters do to 6 different types of Fleet Ships.  If you look at the statistics in any given game (including the statistics in the post above me), you will see that Frigates are much more capable and effective at anti-Fleetship than are Fighters.  Fighters are a glorified meat shield and that's it.

The only reason Frigates have the inflated kill stats is that they kill 80% of the incoming ships before anything can shoot at them. That is a consequence of the AI defenses being too weak and scattered. When they manage to get enough strength to bring it to you in close combat, the Fighters start to shine. If you can just kill everything with Frigates, then of course you don't need Fighters. If you're okay with moving around the planet at 44 speed for 15 minutes clearing everything out, that is.

I mean we're acting like buffing Fighters will be the apocalypse for AI War, the end of fun as we know it.

You know, you'd have to try REALLY hard to make this game not fun. I wasn't here 3 years ago, when all of this balancing wasn't done, and people say it was fun back then, too.
That does NOT mean you can do anything to the game without thinking it through.
We're all trying to come up with ways to make the Fighter better, as you might have noticed. Only me and Dazio are trying more subtle changes, making the Fighter better at what it does and making things it does more relevant, and you are pushing for a flat 50% damage buff and making it do everything. None of these things would break the game or close to it. I just don't see how your changes make the game especially more fun, add "new playstyles" or anything like that. What you want is a permission to upgrade Fighters, I don't need that, but I want them to be slightly better. People wanted a permission to use the Neinzul Enclave Starship not long ago, and they got it. Now after a couple of games with it I'm pretty sure it's completely busted. Was the game made less fun? Not really.
Thing is, the Enclave was a potentially really fun unit, and now its potential is unveiled. How much fun can the Fighter really be? That's why I think it doesn't need this hard of a push. I rely on bonus ships and starships to make me come up with interesting tactics for them, the fleet ships are just there to provide support when you need them to. I don't want to upgrade triangle ships to mk3, because if I have to it means I'm stuck with some really bad bonus ships. Like I am in my current game. Seriously, those Rippers and Leeches need some love too, way more than Fighters do.
What overpowered units do is overshadow everything else. Maws pre-nerf did that for me. Enclaves with Shieldbearers do now. It was never the Bombers, though you seem to believe that for some reason. I don't want it to be the Fighters, either.

[RCIX]

What he said. Why does the game need an all-purpose ship that's good at everything? It doesn't have one right now.

I've actually been wondering, if nothing else, something like this shouldn't be added/rebalanced in? Something that DPSes everything but is low survivability so it needs backup (via, say Shieldbearers or something)?