Discussion about Different Playstyles

[Wingflier]

I agree with your point that Fighters certainly have to be part of your playstyle.  However, I think this is part of the problem because you don't seem to recognize that REGARDLESS of your playstyle, Bombers are inherent to any playstyle, you basically can't win without them.

So let me ask you, why should Fighters be an optional part of any given playstyle, and Bombers be absolutely necessary?  This seems like bad balancing/design mechanics to me.

Also, Fighters actually would be part of my playstyle in an ideal world, I just feel that they are too underpowered in their current state to realistically use the way I would want to use them.  If economy was more of a factor than it is, then their cheap cost would matter, but since it isn't, we can't ignore that and say, "But on paper they'reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee great!" (Shameless Tony the Tiger reference).

I think we should balance for the current state of the game, not the ideal current state of the game.  In the ideal state of the game, the hull type distributions would be a lot better, but they're not.  The same goes for the economy.

If it's your policy that each Triangle ship should be optional based on each person's playstyle, then according to your theory, the Bomber should be nerfed until it's as optional as the other 2.

[Diazo]

This comes back to us having different visions of how to balance the game.

To me, you need certain 'roles' to win a game, you don't need specific units to do so. A fighter is an average 'fleet ship killer' that has several other units that fill the same role, more often then not they are the better 'fleet ship killer's when they come into play. (Such as turrets in a friendly system.)

However, the 'bomber' role is almost exclusive to the 'bomber' ship type, as long as the bomber unit type has the x6 multipliers it does we are going to use it as our primary heavy defenses killer. There is nothing else to fill that role so the 'bomber' unit is best at the 'bomber' role by virtue of the fact that it has no competition. Even if you nerfed the bombers attack multipliers to x3 you would still use the bomber because it would still have one of the best DPS against heavy defenses in the game.

If you nerfed fighters attack multipliers to half what they are, you would not really notice except when targeting bombers, which highlights how different the fighter and bomber get used.

I am not actually suggestion either of those actually be implemented, I'm making a point.

The problem is as much as nerfing the bomber makes sense from a balance point, the high health end game structures already take long enough, taking down the core FF (and similar) with bombers nerfed in anyway would not be a good thing for the game in my opinion.

Which is why I think any sort of serious rebalance regarding the bomber has to wait until the hull types/attack multiplier rebalance even if that is a long ways off.

D.

[Wanderer]

I agree with your point that Fighters certainly have to be part of your playstyle.  However, I think this is part of the problem because you don't seem to recognize that REGARDLESS of your playstyle, Bombers are inherent to any playstyle, you basically can't win without them.

Oh, I absolutely recognize that fact, primarily because the AI HW Cmd Stations are always defended by a fortress + 2 FFs.  Bombers are the hard counter to that defense.  The question is, what do you need to keep bombers alive to do it?

So let me ask you, why should Fighters be an optional part of any given playstyle, and Bombers be absolutely necessary?  This seems like bad balancing/design mechanics to me.

See, I don't feel they're optional in the early game unless you over-ride them with a bonus ship.  Let's drag out a random bonus ship, the eye-bot.  If I have eye-bots I usually don't need bombers unless I'm arguing with a fortress.  They dig underneath the problem forcefields (like raid starships which I use for equivalent work, just speed vs. cloak for target approach) and thus the only resulting thing they're needed for is fortresses... which a flock of MK Is will kill eventually.

However, that bonus ship override... sure.  You start FRD'ing a cockroach or vulture into another system on stream-offense instead of fighter based raiding and you've replaced your 'early and cheap assault force' with something different.  Without it, unless you want to spend 20 minutes waiting on your fleetball to be fully up (even WITH Harvester IIIs) you need that cheap ship to get underway with, and fighters provide that in spades.  You don't need them eventually, you typically need them immediately, they just eventually fall off the radar because staying power overrides cost eventually, particularly with deep assaults and long range movement.

Also, Fighters actually would be part of my playstyle in an ideal world, I just feel that they are too underpowered in their current state to realistically use the way I would want to use them.

Erm...

I think we should balance for the current state of the game, not the ideal current state of the game.  In the ideal state of the game, the hull type distributions would be a lot better, but they're not.  The same goes for the economy.

I agree, we definately should look at the state of the game as it stands.  You're advocating for a longer term usefulness of the fighter.  That's a viable choice, but to me to balance that improvement you absolutely would have to adjust the price tag of the build.  This is where we differ.  I do not want to see drastic enough improvements to what I see as an 'early game' ship take it out of the early game for balance reasons.  Bomber fleets are expensive to construct.  Required to win or not, they are expensive and can obliterate a maxxed econ.  They're for later in the game or for careful usage.  Fighters are completely and utter disposable raiders.

If it's your policy that each Triangle ship should be optional based on each person's playstyle, then according to your theory, the Bomber should be nerfed until it's as optional as the other 2.

I don't.  You can take any other polycrystal hull and swap it out for the bomber to remove fortresses, which are the primary reason they're mandatory... 2 FFs and a Fortress to get at the command center.  Heck with items that can ignore radar dampening you can just pound it flat at whim from range.  Bombers aren't completely necessary any more or less than the other ships are, they're just 'required' at different stages of the game.  Bombers are absolutely required in the late game.  I feel fighters are absolutely required in the early game... but their K costs are outrageous so you really only ever use the Fighter Is for the VERY early game and then move on.

[Nodor]

I feel like the "micro man to the rescue" style of play is already in game.

I tend to build a lot of starships - different roles depending on AI foe types and I will happily (once I have solid whipping boys) micro the heck out of a planet with a starship fleet and a mobile repair station.

I don't micro with fleets.. except to pick which ships are in my blobs to deal with incoming AI waves.  Bombers do not get to be front line vs. fighters for instance.   Fleet Blobs work well on defense and I can spend a lot of time microing starships to clear a system for capturing.   

[relmz32]

[...]
If economy was more of a factor than it is, then their cheap cost would matter, but since it isn't, we can't ignore that and say, "But on paper they'reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee great!" (Shameless Tony the Tiger reference).
[...]

If economy isn't a factor in your games, you are not being as aggressive as you could. Not a criticism, just an observation. Money => some combination of sped up offense or defense.

[Wingflier]

[...]
If economy was more of a factor than it is, then their cheap cost would matter, but since it isn't, we can't ignore that and say, "But on paper they'reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee great!" (Shameless Tony the Tiger reference).
[...]

If economy isn't a factor in your games, you are not being as aggressive as you could. Not a criticism, just an observation. Money => some combination of sped up offense or defense.

I don't think that's necessarily true. 

When you have 10 planets with MKIII Harvesters on them, it's not enough just to be aggressive.  The guy I'm playing a game with right now could tell you:  I'm a very aggressive player.  However, when you say aggressive, it seems to mean wasteful.  You can be aggressive and still use your fleet efficiently, micro it to full effect, and use tricks like "stirring up the hornet's nest", then bringing them to allied territory where your turrets can help crush their number.

That's still being aggressive, it's just not being WASTEFULLY aggressive.  Sure, if I sent all my guys to an enemy planet and put them on FRD every battle, then I'm sure my resources would constantly be taxed...I don't want to play the game like that.  A computer could play the game like that, what's the point?

[keith.lamothe]

In general offensive operations chew your fleet up pretty good, even if you're being careful.  Can you run a couple dozen space docks and a bunch of starship constructors with a large number of engineers assisting to flash-refleet after (or during) each offensive?  I imagine if you had a full cap of everything that you've unlocked permanently available to you with zero delay, you could finish a game in about 2-3 hours of game-time

And then there's mercs, though generally if you find yourself dumping tons into mercs it may be better to spend less K on econ and more on military.

[Draco18s]

And then there's mercs, though generally if you find yourself dumping tons into mercs it may be better to spend less K on econ and more on military.

I haven't been using mercs in my latest game, but I should be.  I'm either at 0 resources (building something big*) or at 999,999 (nothing to build, fully fleeted out, full on turrets, built all fortresses, etc. etc.)

And I only unlocked Mk2 harvesters and don't have a single econ station anywhere.

It's really weird.

*Golem, fortress, or a z-trader building.

[Wingflier]

^ This is what I'm saying.  Big projects aside (these are temporary), you're not using your resources to rebuild your fleet.  He's just using MKII Harvesters, imagine how much money you would have if you were using MKIII?

I feel like we're playing a different game.  I play on difficulties 8-9, with Advanced Hybrids on, and resources past the mid-game are never a problem.  If I lost it's not because I'm out of resources, it's because my defenses were too scarce, or my fleet wasn't effective enough to hold off some major assault.

I DO spend most of my resources on my fleet.  Rarely do I unlock any turrets.  I always unlock MKI Gravity Turrets and Heavy Beam Cannons...that's like 1250 Knowledge?  Sometimes, I MAY unlock MK1 Fortresses...but everything else goes into Fleet Production.

Resources are not that big of a hindrance in rebuilding your fleet.  When you're making, on average, 2,500 metal and crystal per second, you would have to be losing your fleet CONSTANTLY to ever run out of resources.  With that income (which is average for having MKIII Harvesters), it takes about 6 and a half minutes to go from zero resources to full. 

Let's break it down:
Every 6.6 minutes, you have full resources.
Average AI War game lasts 10 hours or more.
You don't use 999,999/999,999 resources unless you've literally lost your entire fleet.

So if you want to honestly tell me I'm supposed to be losing large parts of my fleet every 6 and a half minutes or so, I'd say you've either got godlike micromanagement, you're an extremely wasteful player, or that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll go with option 3.

[chemical_art]

I thought the goal of this thread was to allow a greater number of playstyles?

If some gets full resources and others do not, the solution is to nerf econ so that no one gets full resources?

[Cinth]

unless of course the AI sends 200k firepower through your beach head pretty much all in one go 

[Wingflier]

I thought the goal of this thread was to allow a greater number of playstyles?

If some gets full resources and others do not, the solution is to nerf econ so that no one gets full resources?

The point of this discussion was to make people aware of new playstyles by buffing Fighters. 

People are against buffing Fighters because of their cost-effective nature. 

I've pointed out several times that cost-effectiveness doesn't mean much with the current economic mechanics.

However, since most people seem to be fine with the current economic mechanics (I don't see any threads or mantis issues about it), buffing Fighters is the best solution, since that's something most people seem to agree that needs to be done (even if we disagree on how).

If you'd like to make your own thread complaining about the state of the economy, you're free to do so.

In other words, Fighters need help.  There are 3 main solutions:

1. Buff Fighters.  This is the simplest solution.
2. Change the economic situation.  Much more complicated, and nobody is complaining about it.
3. Change the hull-type distributions.  Even more complicated, isn't going to happen anytime soon (if ever).

Option 1 seems the most logical.

[chemical_art]

Not wanting to buff fighters is not due to cost alone.

It is because they already fulfill a number of roles, some of which are complimented by having a low cost.

By increasing their cost, you don't increase the number of roles, you skew them in a direction toward you want. Plenty of players have demonstrated they use fighters in their roles because they are cheap. Increasing the cost directly infringes on that playstyle. Just because you max out your resources and don't like fighters in their current role doesn't mean others use fighters because they are cheap and their playstyle causes them to not manage full resources.

A buff might, might increase the net amount of roles the fighter can do (I still do not. An increase in raw dps does not make new roles. It just it better, and there is a difference). However, many proposals which certainly will change the fighters role clearly involve external changes, like changing guardians to be more vulnerable to fighters. Increasing fighter's power in return for cost is more tremulous, because you will hinder playstyles which use fighters because they are cheap. And this is just as true as your assertion that fighters are weak, as evidenced in this thread.

So to conclude, if the goal is to increase the number of playstyles in total, and not skew the number of playstyles in another direction, then the one triangle unit suited to playstyles which need a low cost unit should be removed from the triangle.

[Wingflier]

By increasing their cost, you don't increase the number of roles, you skew them in a direction toward you want. Plenty of players have demonstrated they use fighters in their roles because they are cheap. Increasing the cost directly infringes on that playstyle.

People keep talking about increasing the costs of Fighters?  Please show me where anybody said ANYTHING about that? In the "Brainstorming" thread, there have been at least 10 suggestions now, please show me where ANY of those suggestions says ANYTHING about increasing their costs.

Honestly, I'm starting to get the feeling that the only reason people are using this argument is because they can't think of anything else.  If the best way to counter your opponent's position is to continue creating Straw Man Arguments, that's not a good sign.

That's what that is, a Straw Man Argument. Stop using it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A buff might, might increase the net amount of roles the fighter can do (I still do not. An increase in raw dps does not make new roles. It just it better, and there is a difference). However, many proposals which certainly will change the fighters role clearly involve external changes, like changing guardians to be more vulnerable to fighters. Increasing fighter's power in return for cost is more tremulous, because you will hinder playstyles which use fighters because they are cheap. And this is just as true as your assertion that fighters are weak, as evidenced in this thread.

A buff to raw DPS is just one suggestion of many.  It may not even be the best suggestion.  None of the suggestions said anything about increasing their cost.  You pulled that out of somewhere dark and stinky.

So to conclude, if the goal is to increase the number of playstyles in total, and not skew the number of playstyles in another direction, then the one triangle unit suited to playstyles which need a low cost unit shouldn't be removed from the triangle.

Agreed.

[chemical_art]

Also, Fighters actually would be part of my playstyle in an ideal world, I just feel that they are too underpowered in their current state to realistically use the way I would want to use them.  If economy was more of a factor than it is, then their cheap cost would matter, but since it isn't, we can't ignore that and say, "But on paper they'reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee great!" (Shameless Tony the Tiger reference).

It is more of illustration of why the fighter does have a role, and why you want it changed. You don't them cheap and slightly weaker, so you'll make them stronger instead. Except there is the many opinions that fighters have their current power because they are cheap, otherwise they would truly be weak. On the other side of the same coin, making them competitive to frigates and bombers in combat  in every way would mean they need to cost the same too, otherwise we trade the tip of the spear from bombers to a triangle with fighters are bombers both really strong and the frigate being left behind**.  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.

To put it another way, younglings and the triangle ships have some similar stats and unit caps. The younglings however are a fraction of the cost. If you wanted to buff younglings by dramatically increase their lifespan (not saying you would, but to prove this concept) you would either nerf their combat ability or increase their cost to make it balanced.

So for fighters, if you want to increase their power across the board, with the evidence players still use them as-is, then unless you want to skew balance toward the fighter you increase their cost. Or you go another way and increase dps but reduce multiplyers, or increase multplyers and decrease dps. Fighters are on paper competitive, and it shows with players using them. The cost is just the natural direction of the idea of boosting dps with no other change to combat abilities.

Edit: Sorry if I straw-maned you because I assumed you wanted to balance the fighter by making it stronger and thus needing to increase its cost

**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?