Should the Triangle Fleetships be balanced with each other? Why or why not?

[RCIX]

Why i think fighter buffs and/or bomber nerfs are unnessisary:
i do not feel the need for change because this rock-paper-scissor style IS maintained. Each of the 3 triangle ships has very distinct uses,  and i like that. The fact that bombers kill big things and fighters do not is not something that bothers me as much as it apparently does to some people. fighters and missile frigates are much better than most of people give them credit for.

But, as I understand it, not only do bombers kill big things, they also kill off something to the effect of a full half of fleetship types. Which seems odd for a role historically consigned exclusively to fighting large and slow/immobile targets...

[chemical_art]

-Nerf bomber dps by 33%, increase multipliers by 33%
--Makes the bomber hits the very many things it does attack well just as well, but makes it no longer as viable as a standalone ship against other targets...

-Nerf bomber speed to between frigates and fighters
--Reduces bomber's ability to get to destination alone

-Increase fighter dps by 20%, reduce multipliers by between 10 - 20%
--Makes the fighter against a broad spectrum of targets, but does not have it absolutely melt the few targets it already gets a multiplier against

-Increase frigates rate of fire by 20%, reduce frigates damage by 15%
--A greater boost then the ~5% increase in dps would indicate, this makes frigates attack swarmer like ships it gets a bonus against more rapidly, which tend to have lower health but higher caps and thus more decisively handled with higher rate of fire.

[chemical_art]

And the second idea a non ai war player suggested when I was talking about modding in broad terms which included this game. Keep in mind, more of a brain teaser then a suggestion, but fun to daydream about at work for me. To paraphrase him to use ai war verbiage:

"Make the fighter take just one of the multipliers the bomber uses. Don't worry about lore or convetion, think about the fighter as purely a game mechanic"

After an hour or so of brain teasing, I wondered how much chaos would cause if the fighter stole the bomber's bonus toward the "heavy" hull.

[Wingflier]

I think it's a fantastic idea. Space Planes are my favorite bronus ship type because of their bronuses against heavy and ultra-heavy as well as Polycrystal. It's a great solution but I'll tell you right now, you'll never get this community to agree on it. Can't nerf the precious bomber.

[NickAragua]

No.

I find the game to be perfectly fine without completely upending the core triangle. If you disturb the core triangle, then you also have to stir the rest of the pot.

[relmz32]

I think it's a fantastic idea. Space Planes are my favorite bronus ship type because of their bronuses against heavy and ultra-heavy as well as Polycrystal. It's a great solution but I'll tell you right now, you'll never get this community to agree on it. Can't nerf the precious bomber.

I'm sorry if I disrupted the brainstorming on the subject of fixing the triangles ships to the wrong thread, but I wanted to make sure that I weighed in with a dissenting opinion, and did not want to distract the (wonderfully setup) brainstorming thread.

-Nerf bomber dps by 33%, increase multipliers by 33%
--Makes the bomber hits the very many things it does attack well just as well, but makes it no longer as viable as a standalone ship against other targets...

-Nerf bomber speed to between frigates and fighters
--Reduces bomber's ability to get to destination alone

-Increase fighter dps by 20%, reduce multipliers by between 10 - 20%
--Makes the fighter against a broad spectrum of targets, but does not have it absolutely melt the few targets it already gets a multiplier against

-Increase frigates rate of fire by 20%, reduce frigates damage by 15%
--A greater boost then the ~5% increase in dps would indicate, this makes frigates attack swarmer like ships it gets a bonus against more rapidly, which tend to have lower health but higher caps and thus more decisively handled with higher rate of fire.

And the second idea a non ai war player suggested when I was talking about modding in broad terms which included this game. Keep in mind, more of a brain teaser then a suggestion, but fun to daydream about at work for me. To paraphrase him to use ai war verbiage:

"Make the fighter take just one of the multipliers the bomber uses. Don't worry about lore or convetion, think about the fighter as purely a game mechanic"

After an hour or so of brain teasing, I wondered how much chaos would cause if the fighter stole the bomber's bonus toward the "heavy" hull.

I think these would be an excellent addition to the brainstorming thread.

[Wingflier]

I agree Chemical Art, go put them in the brainstorming thread as separate ideas if you wouldn't mind.

[Diazo]

I am against any moving of attack multipliers around.

(I know I did suggest moving the Swarmer from the frigate to the fighter up thread but I don't think that is a good idea any more.)

The reason being is that the game really needs a game-wide attack multiplier and hull type rebalance, trying to do that to a unit or two at a time is just going to twist things up further.

The issue is as soon as we start moving attack multipliers, we are re-defining that the fighter/bombers/frigates roles are and that has game wide implications.

(I have also cleaned up my suggested tweaks to the fighter and added them to the brainstorming thread rather then list them again here.)

D.

[Draco18s]

I am against any moving of attack multipliers around.

(I know I did suggest moving the Swarmer from the frigate to the fighter up thread but I don't think that is a good idea any more.)

The reason being is that the game really needs a game-wide attack multiplier and hull type rebalance, trying to do that to a unit or two at a time is just going to twist things up further.

The issue is as soon as we start moving attack multipliers, we are re-defining that the fighter/bombers/frigates roles are and that has game wide implications.

While true, I don't think the frigate should be anti-swarmer with it's low rate of fire.

[relmz32]

I am against any moving of attack multipliers around.

(I know I did suggest moving the Swarmer from the frigate to the fighter up thread but I don't think that is a good idea any more.)

The reason being is that the game really needs a game-wide attack multiplier and hull type rebalance, trying to do that to a unit or two at a time is just going to twist things up further.

The issue is as soon as we start moving attack multipliers, we are re-defining that the fighter/bombers/frigates roles are and that has game wide implications.

(I have also cleaned up my suggested tweaks to the fighter and added them to the brainstorming thread rather then list them again here.)

D.

Personally, i think a modest speed and range buff would be the change i would most likely support. Great post in the brainstorming thread.

[Wingflier]

I am against any moving of attack multipliers around.

(I know I did suggest moving the Swarmer from the frigate to the fighter up thread but I don't think that is a good idea any more.)

The reason being is that the game really needs a game-wide attack multiplier and hull type rebalance, trying to do that to a unit or two at a time is just going to twist things up further.

The issue is as soon as we start moving attack multipliers, we are re-defining that the fighter/bombers/frigates roles are and that has game wide implications.

(I have also cleaned up my suggested tweaks to the fighter and added them to the brainstorming thread rather then list them again here.)

D.

Personally, i think a modest speed and range buff would be the change i would most likely support. Great post in the brainstorming thread.

I agree it was a great suggestion, I'll be voting for it myself.  Though, it does nothing to address the overpowered nature of Bombers.  It's like giving an inhaler to an asthmatic man with a gash in his chest pouring blood.  Yeah it's great that he can breathe better, but about that gaping hole in his chest...

Buffing Fighters doesn't change the fact that Bombers are good against 50% or more targets in the game, including the most important and powerful targets, while their speed and stats are on par with the other 2 fleet ships.  I feel like there should be at least a speed nerf or something!

[Diazo]

edit: Never mind, I was starting the argument up again on a tangential topic.

D.

[Wanderer]

I commented in the playstyle thread but I figured I'd throw my two cents in here as well.

There's no reason for the triangle to be balanced against each other, they just need to be effective for what they do.

Fighters: Cheap and early game replaceable probe ships, eventually cheap meatshields that are outshone by nearly every other specialized bonus ship.

Bombers: Core assault unit used for significant offense usable into the deep late-game.

Frigates: Generic long range anti-fleet ships useful for countering range attacks and generally protecting a specialized fleet-ball.

These are my personal usages of these ships.  Do you believe that the fighter should have more late game staying power?  Perhaps, but that would need to affect its primary usage to me, that of always having a cheap to produce starter ship during the early game's stringent economy.  Increasing its effectiveness would usually mean bringing into alignment the cost of the ship itself.  This would disrupt my current usage and preference for this ship... that of always having a throwaway 'cheap' ship available to me in early game so I had raiders while my main 'fleet ball' went to work elsewhere.

Additionally, should your AI enemies end up heavy on polycrystal counts they are effective hard counters as well.  I personally would like to see their K costs come down to support the 'early game' philosophy for those ships, but Fleet ship K costs are pretty set in stone and I'm not sure if that's a viable alternative.

[Wingflier]

Increasing the amount of damage Fighters do early game doesn't stifle their role as cheap, early game meatshields, it just makes them better at it.  It also makes them better at it lategame as well, as said damage carries through the 4 Marks.

In other words, I don't see how buffing Fighters (without changing the cost) changes your playstyle at all.  It changes your perception of the playstyle.  Should your perception of your playstyle prevent us from buffing Fighters raw damage enough that they will still be useful late game?

I don't mean this as an insult, your argument just seems to be the most popular when discussing this issue.  Even though your playstyle would remain the same (buffing the Fighters won't make them less useful early game ), your perception has changed, making you uncomfortable with how you view Fighters should be.  That doesn't seem like a legitimate enough concern not to buff them, as some people actually want them to be useful late game.

The point I'm making (and have tried to make from the beginning), is that we shouldn't be hindering the game's growth and evolution, and denying new playstyles, because some people are uncomfortable with the perception of how a unit should be.  I don't see how buffing the Fighter changes anybody's playstyle at all, it just opens up new ones.

[chemical_art]

Increasing the amount of damage Fighters do early game doesn't stifle their role as cheap, early game meatshields, it just makes them better at it.  It also makes them better at it lategame as well, as said damage carries through the 4 Marks.

In other words, I don't see how buffing Fighters (without changing the cost) changes your playstyle at all.  It changes your perception of the playstyle.  Should your perception of your playstyle prevent us from buffing Fighters raw damage enough that they will still be useful late game?

I don't mean this as an insult, your argument just seems to be the most popular when discussing this issue.  Even though your playstyle would remain the same (buffing the Fighters won't make them less useful early game ), your perception has changed, making you uncomfortable with how you view Fighters should be.  That doesn't seem like a legitimate enough concern not to buff them, as some people actually want them to be useful late game.

The point I'm making (and have tried to make from the beginning), is that we shouldn't be hindering the game's growth and evolution, and denying new playstyles, because some people are uncomfortable with the perception of how a unit should be.  I don't see how buffing the Fighter changes anybody's playstyle at all, it just opens up new ones.

On the other side of the same coin, buffing their dps doesn't change their role. They still are cheap meatshields except now the shields bash a little harder. How will new tactics open up I ask, other then just making them a little bit stronger in relation to anything else.

You say on the one hand it won't change others playstyle, but then say it somehow will change yours.  You say you shouldn't let others perception of their unit prevent them to change the status of the fighter, but so far the only evidence that has been shown that will change of the fighter is your perception of them. You've said outright you want the changes so you can use the fighter the way you want.


Perhaps if you were to more fully explain what, specifically, would change with the increase of fighter dps the position would be more clear.