Jump to content


Photo

How Should Fighter Spawns Be Handled?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

Poll: Complement Conundrum (25 member(s) have cast votes)

Which mechanic should PR use?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote

#1 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 10 January 2008 - 06:11 AM

Canon aside for a second; this is a pure balance question (with maybe a touch of performance to consider). Currently, fighter complement spawn rate is determined by the number of apparent hangars that a carrier has to launch from: the more hangars, the faster fighters can launch. However, there is no limit to how many squadrons can be in battle at once. This leads to situations where you can potentially have 144 squadrons from the Executor-class in battle simultaneously, or 35 Venator-class squadrons sharing 6 population units with the ship itself (there is no way to make complements take up population). Now, because these are TIEs and they usually die quickly, it's not much of an issue, but the Lusankya launches 72 squadrons of advanced NR fighters, and who knows what else might be added to the mod in the future. There's clearly a balance exploit here.

On the other hand, I can force carriers to hold some squadrons in reserve. I think a carrier's population value is a good gauge of how many squadrons a carrier should be allowed to have in battle at once, so that's the number I'd use. In this scenario, the Venator could only launch 6 squadrons, but would have 29 more of them ready to go in event that any of those are destroyed. The Executor would be allowed 44 and the Quasar Fire 2. Spawn rates would not change - those would still be hangar-based - the only change would be to add a cap to the number of complement squadrons that can be in play at once, which would be equal to the carrier's population value.

So what do you want me to do?

#2 GrandMoffThoth

GrandMoffThoth
  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 08:59 AM

my vote says:

These rag a muffins shall be driven into anhilation any which way you decide to slice it Phoenix. :unsure:

Edited by GrandMoffThoth, 10 January 2008 - 09:04 AM.


#3 Dalmp

Dalmp
  • Project Team
  • 249 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 01:18 PM

I can't really vote for either of those options. I think that placing them at the population value of the carrier would unnecessarily weaken some ships relatively. If they are pure carrier ships the chances are that their pop values are low - but it wouldn't make sense to have them launch less just because of it. The impstar's main power is it's guns. The escort carrier's main power is it's fighters. Treating them equally with respect to max units launched is going to effect the balance of the ships.

My vote would be to limit it, but limit it directly by the number of hangers on the ship, rather than pop value. Say... 4-6 ships max per hanger. This way they will all be done launching their fighters at the same max time, and then the fleet can move without having to continually assign fighters that spawn along the way, dotting your backtrail (as is the seriously annoying case with venators).

I do however, believe that you should definitely limit the max number. No matter what you do the player is somewhat restricted, so that's not a concern imo. Which way you slice it doesn't matter, we still have a disadvantage ship commanders wouldn't have. They could choose to launch them all, or choose to hold some protected inside the ship and in reserve. If we get one, we can't choose the other. Having many squads out at once is just as much a disadvantage as not being able to - as they can be destroyed by anti-fighter ships etc. So we might as well limit it for lag reasons, so long as it doesn't critically upset the balance of the ships.

imo

Edited by Dalmp, 10 January 2008 - 01:58 PM.

Amateurs study Tactics. Professionals study Logistics.
-Napoleon

Posted Image


#4 muneyoshi

muneyoshi
  • Members
  • 196 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 04:07 PM

Canon aside for a second; this is a pure balance question (with maybe a touch of performance to consider). Currently, fighter complement spawn rate is determined by the number of apparent hangars that a carrier has to launch from: the more hangars, the faster fighters can launch. However, there is no limit to how many squadrons can be in battle at once. This leads to situations where you can potentially have 144 squadrons from the Executor-class in battle simultaneously, or 35 Venator-class squadrons sharing 6 population units with the ship itself (there is no way to make complements take up population). Now, because these are TIEs and they usually die quickly, it's not much of an issue, but the Lusankya launches 72 squadrons of advanced NR fighters, and who knows what else might be added to the mod in the future. There's clearly a balance exploit here.

On the other hand, I can force carriers to hold some squadrons in reserve. I think a carrier's population value is a good gauge of how many squadrons a carrier should be allowed to have in battle at once, so that's the number I'd use. In this scenario, the Venator could only launch 6 squadrons, but would have 29 more of them ready to go in event that any of those are destroyed. The Executor would be allowed 44 and the Quasar Fire 2. Spawn rates would not change - those would still be hangar-based - the only change would be to add a cap to the number of complement squadrons that can be in play at once, which would be equal to the carrier's population value.

So what do you want me to do?


Well... canon could actually support either side of this arguement.. I am also torn myself between the debates.. if you limit fighter spawns by pop cap for the ship.. some ships would become all but useless like the Quasar.. let's face it.. it has pathetic weapon systems and a already limited fighter count (doesn't it only have like 4 squads? I don't use them much) if it can only launch 2 of them it has almost no value in combat and can be replaced but better combat ships that have a pop cap of 3.. just 1 higher.. I did like the idea of the Quasar as the rebels have limited fighter spawns.. low pop count would massively weaken a ship that is already debateable sometimes in heavy combat (I tend to assign them to their own group and leave them out of the main fighting).. yet as you pointed out some ships such as the Venator have an ungodly number of fighters.. which is also their main selling point.. a decent enough ship but easily outgunned by even some rebel ships (though far mor useful the the Quasar).. perhapes a compromise? A captain of a SSD wouldn't launch all fighters at first.. partically bombers would't be sent out in the first wave.. the onlytime he "might" if he was the only ship in the fleet.. which is never the case unless you are just screwing around.. he might be the only large cap ship in tactical combat.. but he wouldn't be the only one in the fleet.. he should be limited.. I think limits should also favor the Empire.. rebel/nr fighters are alot better then ties.. I think "carrier" class ships should also be favored in the limits... that is after all thy're main combat ability.. and smaller carriers like the Quasar shouldn't have a limit.. they don't carry enough as it is in my opinion lol.. on the lag issue.. I haven't seen it.. but I also haven't had a battle with insane numbers on screen at once (high numbers in the battle just not on screen at the same time).. also most rebel shps do not have a large compliment to begin with.. I think the norm for them is 2 - 4 until you hit dreadnaughts.. so.. pretty much this limiting will hurt mostly Imperial players.. (minus the Lusankya)..

mm.. I just thought of something.. remember in FoC the Executor had a button to hit to spawn fighters? is there someway to possibly use that feature? That would give the players the opition of continueing to launch. or hold some in reserve.. dunno if that's feasible though with the number of special buttons allowed being 2 (stupid PG for hard codeing that) but on some of the carrier type ships this might be workable.. don't think they have 2 abilities lol

#5 Guest_Dane Kiet (school again)_*

Guest_Dane Kiet (school again)_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2008 - 04:51 PM

I agree on how the carriers should have more compliment then thier cps, after all, they can't stand up to a ship of equal tech lvl and class (Quasar). Also, on some sips, like the SSDs, the spawn button could replace the tractor beam, since it is automaticlly used once a ship is in range.

#6 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 10 January 2008 - 07:48 PM

My vote would be to limit it, but limit it directly by the number of hangers on the ship, rather than pop value. Say... 4-6 ships max per hanger.

Well, the problem is that not all hangars are the same size. The one on the Quasar Fire, for example, is massive. I think I count it effectively as four, because it should be able to launch all fighters at once without delays. However, the openings on the Nebulon-B can barely fit a single Z-95 (technically, I think it's even too tight for one on his model). Then you have ships like the Praetor that only have one hangar. It just gets messy if you do it this way.

Some day I want to sit down and calculate each ships hangar space in cubic meters from its complement and then use that number to handle alternate complements (such as in the case of Rebel ISDs). Maybe that would be a better value for this.

if you limit fighter spawns by pop cap for the ship.. some ships would become all but useless like the Quasar.. let's face it.. it has pathetic weapon systems and a already limited fighter count (doesn't it only have like 4 squads? I don't use them much)

The Quasar Fire/Super Transport are your best ships for fighter repair. It's dicey to bring them into battle (especially unescorted), but it can pay off sometimes. The Quasar Fire is still the best carrier for a frigate and relatively better than the Super Trans (4 squadrons on 2 population versus 6 on 4). I'm thinking about improving the weapons somehow... But canonically, they are crap.

mm.. I just thought of something.. remember in FoC the Executor had a button to hit to spawn fighters? is there someway to possibly use that feature?

Yeah, but it is one more button in use, and a relatively unimportant one at that (meaning it would get low priority in the ordering and would be knocked off easily).

Also, on some sips, like the SSDs, the spawn button could replace the tractor beam, since it is automaticlly used once a ship is in range.

Only if it shows up on the interface already I think (I don't use auto-fire much). Can someone check this? Does it work when it doesn't show up?

#7 Dane Kiet

Dane Kiet
  • Members
  • 228 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 09:05 PM

every time i get a ImpIV close enough (that doesn't happen often, they are usualy dead by that time), it does it.
Posted Image
One choice can change a life..........
One choice can change many lives.........
What's your choice?

#8 muneyoshi

muneyoshi
  • Members
  • 196 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 09:36 PM

not suggesting you beef up the weapon systems on the Quasar.. I don't think a carrier/repair ship should have great weapon systems.. just saying.. it's fighters are it's weapon systems.. if you limit it's spawns it won't really have much of a use (how many of us REALLY pull fighters back for repairs during normal combat? I have at times.. but not often)

#9 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 10 January 2008 - 09:40 PM

Just take an Independence-class and have your escort carrier guard so that it follows. Then your fighters get repaired as they screen enemy bombers. They're more useful if you bring them into battle.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 10 January 2008 - 09:41 PM.


#10 muneyoshi

muneyoshi
  • Members
  • 196 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 09:56 PM

Just take an Independence-class and have your escort carrier guard so that it follows. Then your fighters get repaired as they screen enemy bombers. They're more useful if you bring them into battle.


see.. my guard seems to be broken lol.. fighters I have put on guarding a cap ship tend not to follow.. never tried it with a cap ship though (always had this even in EaW and FoC so I didn't mention it as a bug).. and I rarly build anything the size of a MC120.. though I have other ships that would work with easy enough

#11 Dalmp

Dalmp
  • Project Team
  • 249 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 09:57 PM

Yes tractor beams definitely work even when not on the interface. I've actually been meaning to complement you on that. It's so cool having a tractor beam on all the appropriate ships without actually needing to limit ship abilities to fit it.

Is it possible to limit the number of fighters spawnable by the executor power? My big beef with the stock FOC executor ability was that you had to continually take time to launch fighters - a tedious and annoying task. If it could be autofired, and could be disabled at will, that would be tremendous.

OK, I see where you are going with the hanger-size thing. Well, I don't think it's important to become rules-bound. A common sense approach would work fine imo. By hanger number or hanger size is just one way of looking at it. It's only important to end up with a fair system for maintaining some form of balance between ships in play (pop value wouldn't do that, and I guess hanger # wouldn't either). Gut instinct on a case by case basis alone might be sufficient for defining the values.

Edited by Dalmp, 10 January 2008 - 10:01 PM.

Amateurs study Tactics. Professionals study Logistics.
-Napoleon

Posted Image


#12 muneyoshi

muneyoshi
  • Members
  • 196 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 10:01 PM

Yes tractor beams definitely work even when not on the interface.

Is it possible to limit the number of fighters spawnable by the executor power? My big beef with the stock FOC executor ability was that you had to continually take time to launch fighters - a tedious and annoying task. If it could be autofired, and could be disabled at will, that would be tremendous.

OK, I see where you are going with the hanger-size thing. Well, I don't think it's important to become rules-bound. A common sense approach would work fine imo. By hanger number or hanger size is just one way of looking at it. It's only important to end up with a fair system for maintaining some form of balance between ships in play (pop value wouldn't do that, and I guess hanger # wouldn't either). Gut instinct on a case by case basis alone might be sufficient for defining the values.


it did run out in FoC actually.. I ran out once lol.. the battle went on for damn near 40 minutes.. had the DSII and that... the rebels had a massive fleet of Assualt frigates and escort frigates and a mess of fighters. they actually almost droped it's sheilds.. almost.. though the bombers did take out a number of guns

#13 Dalmp

Dalmp
  • Project Team
  • 249 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 10:02 PM

it did run out in FoC actually.. I ran out once lol.. the battle went on for damn near 40 minutes.. had the DSII and that... the rebels had a massive fleet of Assualt frigates and escort frigates and a mess of fighters. they actually almost droped it's sheilds.. almost.. though the bombers did take out a number of guns


haha wow. That must have been a crazy battle. Ok, there you go, something new every day to learn. :unsure:
Amateurs study Tactics. Professionals study Logistics.
-Napoleon

Posted Image


#14 muneyoshi

muneyoshi
  • Members
  • 196 posts

Posted 10 January 2008 - 10:31 PM

yes.. it was insane.. by the battles end I trashed over 200 rebe frigates (counting both types) and about 30 various fighter types

I believe I ran out of gihters at around 60 - 65 squads launched.. plus or minus some.. but the funny thing was I wasn't expecting to run out with it being an ability button lol

Edited by muneyoshi, 10 January 2008 - 10:32 PM.


#15 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 11 January 2008 - 01:20 AM

see.. my guard seems to be broken lol.. fighters I have put on guarding a cap ship tend not to follow..

It works about half the time for me. Just keep trying until it follows.

but the funny thing was I wasn't expecting to run out with it being an ability button lol

All the ability does is launch your reserves. Right now, we have no reserves; everything scrambles.

My big beef with the stock FOC executor ability was that you had to continually take time to launch fighters - a tedious and annoying task. If it could be autofired, and could be disabled at will, that would be tremendous.

It could probably be auto-fired, but disabled? I'm not sure. But without reserves, it shouldn't do anything.

OK, I see where you are going with the hanger-size thing. Well, I don't think it's important to become rules-bound. A common sense approach would work fine imo. By hanger number or hanger size is just one way of looking at it. It's only important to end up with a fair system for maintaining some form of balance between ships in play (pop value wouldn't do that, and I guess hanger # wouldn't either). Gut instinct on a case by case basis alone might be sufficient for defining the values.

Well, since this is a bit of a simulator, I prefer to keep things consistent for the purposes of fair comparison. Plus it makes balance easier if you have fewer variables. PG balances by tweaking until something feels "right," but that's not me. If something is out of balance, I need a new formula for it. Consistency is paramount.

At this point though, I'm not going to change anything.

#16 jdk002

jdk002

    Destroyer.. er.. Creator of Worlds

  • Project Team
  • 269 posts

Posted 12 January 2008 - 06:17 AM

Personally, I think the way it is now is fine. It forces you to have adequate fighter defense for your fleets.

Although.. in the case of the Lusankya, I wouldn't have it fire fully upgraded ships honestly.. a fleet of fully upgraded fighter squadrons and an upgraded dreadnought is just plain scary.

Upgraded models would be cool, just not the tenth variants of said ships. Maybe 3rd/4th generation fighters or so for balance. Just throwing my thoughts out there.

Edited by jdk002, 12 January 2008 - 06:18 AM.


#17 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 12 January 2008 - 07:25 AM

Yeah, I'll have to do something about that. I may just leave complements as they are normally for transports at that level.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 12 January 2008 - 07:25 AM.


#18 Dane Kiet

Dane Kiet
  • Members
  • 228 posts

Posted 12 January 2008 - 03:33 PM

Leave one X-Wing squadron untouched (I've gone rogue).
Posted Image
One choice can change a life..........
One choice can change many lives.........
What's your choice?

#19 Phoenix Rising

Phoenix Rising

    Beyond the Impossible

  • Petrolution Staff
  • 6,509 posts
  • Projects:Phoenix Rising
  •  Mod Leader
  • Division:Petrolution
  • Job:Mod Specialist

Posted 12 January 2008 - 05:45 PM

Right. Wing commanders would be the exception.

#20 Dalmp

Dalmp
  • Project Team
  • 249 posts

Posted 13 January 2008 - 12:18 AM

Yeah I don't mind the way it is now either, tbh. It works fine for me. I don't see it as a major thing - at best a very very minor deal. I'm kind of 55/45 in favor of reserves, but that assumes it was done just perfectly, and there are bigger fish to fry imo. To get it tweaked to perfection would (atm) probably take more time than it's worth.
Amateurs study Tactics. Professionals study Logistics.
-Napoleon

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users