If you would buff fighters, how would you buff them?

Warnoise · Post by **Warnoise** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 00:56

We all know in Xrebirth that fighters are extremely useless for their prices. This is why they deserve to be balanced out.

How would you make them balanced?

imo, I think their prices should at least be cut to 1/2. Fighter like Hayabusa for example are hardly more useful than a drone.

Post by **Sparky Sparkycorp** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 02:55

I'm inclined to agree in the sense that I think they could reasonably benefit from an increase in total hitpoints at their approximate current costs.

If incremental increases in performance/survivability among ships tended to be accompanied by increasingly-large cost increases, they'd probably be fine.

As it is, they cost relatively more than capital ships (based on stats here and here), are more likely to die before they could repair than capital ships, cannot repair for free, capital weapons don't tend to find it that hard to hit them (Plasma/JETs one-shot them as an extreme example), and they can't keep up with travelling capitals.

Example costs for purchasable, non-DLC ships
Small ships with missiles: 14-37 HP/1000 Cr (missiles are effective against surface element groups)
Small ships without missiles: 21-95 HP/1000 Cr
Large ships: 110-129 HP/1000 Cr
XL ships: 83-122 HP/1000 Cr

It's harder to compare potential DPS/Cr as no ship can apply it all the time, and missiles are vary variable if they hit, and I don't know what DPS fighter missiles could do per object, so please take the following numbers with a pinch of salt.

Example costs for purchasable, non-DLC ships
Small ships: 2.4-6.7 kDPS/MCr (DPS from guns only)
Large ships: 1.7-2.0 kDPS/MCr*
XL ships: 2.7-4.4 kDPS/MCr*

*Missile DPS assumes only 1 object hit, no range issues, and no other turret snipes a target before the missile arrives. Not super accurate but at least some variables cancel each-other out to some extent.

My gut feeling is that fighters with missiles are probably not far off capitals or maybe more cost-effective, in terms of firepower. They also have going for them mass-availability, not needing as many types of construction ware or surface elements (less likely for production to stall), and simpler setup (even if you don't like default Pilots).

It's really just the HP/Cr thing that I feel is the main issue for me. The lack of self-repair is less of an issue for fragile things on the cheaper end of the market.

hisazul · Post by **hisazul** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 03:50

I personally think it's combination of 3 factors.

1. Player only has skunk so things have to be balanced around that. If player is useless in 90% of engagements it's not really a space sim anymore it's a management sim.

2. Completely agree that with the kind of weapons/range/missiles capitals have fighters simply stand no chance unless they vastly outnumber opposition. Example are at this point long standing issue of oversized pirate wings. They can vaporize a sole capital ship but we go into issue number 3.

3. Price. For all the things related to them: ships, pilots and repairs. Yep no free repairs means they are not fire and forget wonder. They must be repaired which both costs money and time since there is no easy, painless way to do so.

If fighters assigned to stations/managers/defense officers etc. Would get order to go and repair... it would be HUGE.
If carrier ships actually worked like carriers it would solve the problem of fighters not being able to keep up with the big boys.

GCU Grey Area · Post by **GCU Grey Area** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 13:56

Biggest thing which stops me from using fighters isn't their stats, it's the lack of carriers, both as a means of transport & for repairs. Without that fighters are just too much micro management for me to bother using.

Post by **euclid** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 16:01

Agreed. It's neither the price nor the stats that bothers me most. It's the fact that there's no carrier and that none of the fighters can equip a jump drive.

The latter makes them useless as wingmen (if the Skunk jumps the fighters will take the scenic route). In previous X games you could transfer a jump drive to a freebee or bailed out fighter (not all though) or order a carrier to jump in and the fighter(s) to dock.

That's why I do not bother with fighters at all (freebees and/or bailed-outs).

Cheers Euclid

Post by **Sparky Sparkycorp** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 16:11

When used in the ecosystem of Small and Medium ships, micromanagement of S/M fighters doesn't seem bad.

We can manually assign them to escort M traders/miners if have some undertaking manual orders. Or we can bulk-assign fighters to Station DOs and the DO will automate their distribution to escort duty for Medium Trade/Mine ships assigned to the station's Manager.

mr.WHO · Post by **mr.WHO** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 16:49

1) Price decrease
2) proper carriers, carriers auto-repair docked fighters
3) Dammage fighters should auto-retreat to carrier, just like capship auto-retreat when in danger.
4) Nerf Plasma/JET against fighters (for example significantly reduce turret tracking speed).
5) Make proper bombers and proper bomber-logic (aka lob torpedos from outside of capship range - would make fighter-escorts a critical part of fleet)
6) more stats diferentiation and reballance (most of Albio fighters are just plain copy/paste and even their encyclopedia description say they are crap)

Sparky Sparkycorp wrote:When used in the ecosystem of Small and Medium ships, micromanagement of S/M fighters doesn't seem bad.

Yeah fighter-to-fighter combat is OK, but the problem is that fighters are mostly useless against everything else, so there is no point for having them in the first place.

Godzii · Post by **Godzii** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 17:28

For me, the 2 main issues are :
- their value (price/benefits). It's extremely low, they are way too expensive for what they do. Especially compared to capships, that have amazing (too good?) value.
- their maintenance. It's insanely bad to repair them 1 by 1. Repairs cost are way too high, too. I currently let them die and buy new ones, for ± the same cost (save the repair troubles).

These 2 things need fixing, imo. The rest would be "nice to have".

Need fixing :
- price adjustment compared to capship (either decrease small ship price, or increase capship price)
- bulk repair in shipyards (repair many at once, or some sort of queue, anything...)
- much lower repair cost (repair cost can't be = brand new cost)
- maybe add construction time (atm they are instant)

Nice to have :
- proper carrier, with both docking and repair mechanic (engineers + construction URVs) OR a "warp bubble" : capship warps with their closeby escort
- stances (commands : stay near capship, engage any target, engage attacking target)
- being able to capture enemy pilots in their pods.
- and, ofc (...), give them components. But... yeah.

Post by **Nanook** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 19:42

Fighters in their present incarnation are simply not worth the effort when you can use drones instead. Drones can be equipped on both stations and ships, are self repaired when they redock after an engagement, can go everywhere a capital ship goes, and are easily replaced by the player's station defense officer (not so for ships, but are easily mass replaced by sending a ship to a shipyard or transferring them from a player supply ship). The only use I see for fighters is something for the player to fight, kill and loot.

And having them escort medium ships is also not worth the effort. They die too easily and the player may not even notice they're gone until the ship they're escorting also eventually dies. Not to mention the price of the escorts often exceeds the price of the escorted ship. So is it even worth the cost? I don't believe so which is why I never use them.

RAVEN.myst · Post by **RAVEN.myst** » Thu, 9. Feb 17, 21:55

GCU Grey Area wrote:Biggest thing which stops me from using fighters isn't their stats, it's the lack of carriers, both as a means of transport & for repairs. Without that fighters are just too much micro management for me to bother using.

I agree. I think that the best way to improve them would be not so much by tinkering with them, but by improving the ways that they are used, managed, and maintained. In my experience, one of the most discouraging things about these fighters is that, unless one is prepared to spend an absurd amount of time micromanaging their maintenance, they are essentially disposable - buy them in bulk, and either stick them to a station to escort its M-sized miners, or throw them en masse (yet largely ineffectually) at some target. Their fragility combined with the inordinate amount of effort involved in offsetting damage attrition make them unappealing. Group docking at shipyards for repairs would help. The ability for their commanders to automatically send them for repairs would help (say, a manager or DO or captain that they are assigned to.) The ability to dock them at a carrier or station when idle would be nice to have, and would make sense.

As assets, the value of fighters would improve dramatically if it were possible to sensibly and conveniently protect that value.

Godzii wrote:- their maintenance. It's insanely bad to repair them 1 by 1. Repairs cost are way too high, too. I currently let them die and buy new ones, for ± the same cost (save the repair troubles).

Very true. Repairing a half-damaged fighter costs pretty much have the replacement cost - simpler to just get more, and let the damaged ones perish. This disposability effectively devalues them.

Godzii wrote: Need fixing :
- price adjustment compared to capship (either decrease small ship price, or increase capship price)
- bulk repair in shipyards (repair many at once, or some sort of queue, anything...)
- much lower repair cost (repair cost can't be = brand new cost)

Nice to have :
- proper carrier, with both docking and repair mechanic (engineers + construction URVs) OR a "warp bubble" : capship warps with their closeby escort
- stances (commands : stay near capship, engage any target, engage attacking target)

All of the above, +1. Proper commands and stances I actually consider more than merely "nice to have", but in fact a must-have. Again, being able to effectively both deploy and protect these assets would enhance their value.

Godzii · Post by **Godzii** » Fri, 10. Feb 17, 01:05

Would the small ships ever become "fixed", or more valuable, I think we would also need a better way to manage the pilots, then.

Maybe a menu where we could see them all, and possibly affect them to new ships / ask them to come back onboard.

Maybe even a broader solution : a way to ask for general staff to "wait on station", so that we don't have to do everything with the 5 (4 if you have a marine officer) slots of the Skunk. A crew quarter, but on player_owned station. Could be the dorm room, the bar... or could be no specific room at all, they'd just walk the station, among blue NPCs.

Anyway, would small ships become better, I think the pilots management would then become the next "issue", so they probably should both be addressed at the same time.

Edit : actually, nevermind. I just uninstalled this thing. Let it die, imo, it's beyond repair.

The assets are great, good luck with X4 gents!

Archaeosis · Post by **Archaeosis** » Fri, 10. Feb 17, 14:24

An obvious quick-fix I'm horrified they never added is pilots passively repairing their ships over time. Can't be hard to implement and would be really helpful.

Repairing them manually is a complete cluster**** and nicely emblematic of the thoughtless game design sprinkled liberally throughout Rebirth.

Post by **Sparky Sparkycorp** » Fri, 10. Feb 17, 14:35

Please try to stay on-topic.

General criticism of Rebirth is not prohibited on the forum but it isn't what this thread is about. 3 years in, its also probably not conducive to achieving specific changes either.

mr.WHO · Post by **mr.WHO** » Fri, 10. Feb 17, 15:10

Anyway, would small ships become better, I think the pilots management would then become the next "issue", so they probably should both be addressed at the same time.

I'd say this is not only the fighter related problem, but part of the much bigger X-Rebith issue with non-existing mass NPC management.
If I'd be able to mass put 5-star pilots on my fighters it might be nice, but wouldn't change much due to how weak and unflexible fighters are in X-Rebirth.

Godzii · Post by **Godzii** » Fri, 10. Feb 17, 15:11

Sparky Sparkycorp wrote:Please try to stay on-topic.

General criticism of Rebirth is not prohibited on the forum but it isn't what this thread is about. 3 years in, its also probably not conducive to achieving specific changes either.

I don't mean to look defiant, but it is my honest feeling. And it's not negative, it's positive.

As I understand, Egosoft is a small team, so I'd rather have them working full force on the next opus, than investing manpower trying to salvage this thing. A fish will never fly. Stop trying.

Which, on topic, would be : do not change anything about small ships. Gather all your team & brainpower to work on the next one (and please, give us the ant-farm simulator back, in your glorious new engine!!).

Post by **Santi** » Fri, 10. Feb 17, 21:28

You can tweak fighters, but the problem is the gap between ship classes and roles. Large and X Large trading ships have too many weapons, some of them could qualify as warships to be honest.

A heavy fighter should not have any problems tackling a trading ship, fair enough if the trade ship is a smuggler or carries a very valuable cargo for it to have more guns, but run of the mill traders should be pretty much defenceless.

As for warships, Balors are a good example of balanced anti fighter armament in a specific class of ship with a defined role. Important as others have said, is that there are more control regarding how to use your assets in combat, does not matter how much you tweak fighters and other ships if at the end combat is a free for all in melee range.

Warnoise · Post by **Warnoise** » Sat, 11. Feb 17, 06:17

I think Fighters with missiles arent bad, i just think that they lack in variety in terms of weaponry (which plays in lack of variety in fighter roles) but that is another topic.

I know improving their AI at fighting capital ships (add strafing/ hovering while destroying surface elements instead of flying straight towards it) would be hard and takes a long time.

So as a simple solution, i think number tweaking is feasible. Improve hull/shield of slow fighters like katana, and drop the price of all fighters by at least 50% (5mill for the drostan is just insane).

mr.WHO · Post by **mr.WHO** » Sat, 11. Feb 17, 09:57

If you have access to Ideas forums, I posted the the full combat craft rebalance (fighters included) - basically entire X-Rebirth ballance is Skunk-centric crap, thus everything else is out of ballance.

http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=393402

Nikola515 · Post by **Nikola515** » Sun, 12. Feb 17, 10:39

Only problem that i see with fighters in all X games is that they don't have major role in game. For example they cant auto fix (auto dock to shipyard/station to get fixed)and they require too much micromanaging to maintain them. Setting up of M1 in X3 was nightmare and especially when it comes managing them. This makes them expendable and hard to reuse without micromanaging... All though i would love to see different types of ship loadouts.... For example having light,medium and heavy Katanas

RodentofDoom · Post by **RodentofDoom** » Sun, 26. Feb 17, 00:54

The cap-ships designated as carriers need landing bays so they actually can be carriers

L-Sul ~20 spaces
H-Sul ~ 40 spaces
Arawn ~ 100 (2x 50) spaces

Being able to set a 'repair threshhold' that when reached a s/m ship pilot would automaically run off for repairs and then return to his assigned task, this would be nice as well (whilst semi automated, it has a time/cost component built in).