multirole fighter consistently beats AA fighter in closed testing for cost

[Saktoth]

Sigh. See if you get different results. It might be the speed change. Or the ground firing nerf/air firing buff the multirole got.

[Google Frog]

I don't want to buff dedicated fighter.

Maybe we should re-think fighters and change the roles to anti-fighter fighter and anti-bomber fighter, both these roles could hit ground. The current fighter roles don't really work imo as it leads to spamming dedicated fighter most of the time(assuming balance).

[Saktoth]

It was fine back when multirole hurt ground, it was really a descision of whether to be safe purely from air and invest a lot in pure AA, or to have something that can hunt down raiders and patrol your borders but be at risk from the enemy overhwlming you with his own dedicated fighters.

Multiroles were always just flat out, the better option, unless he tried to trump you by going dedicated. It was always that interplay of who goes dedicated first, who blinsk and commits totally to air (and then the other guy can just switch to land).

Now, since fighters have been jiggered with a lot and multirole nerfed vs ground and buffed vs air, we've lost that dynamic.

As for changing the roles: Which is better vs gunships? Do you need a 'trump' fighter just to kill enemy fighters? IMO land AA should be the answer to fighters.

[KingRaptor]

From what I can see, the problem is the multiroles can simply tail the dedicated fighters and gun them down; the dedicated fighters can't shake them. Not to mention that dedicated fighters have patently awful DPS/cost.

I've prepared a commit (with extensive close testing) that allows dedicated fighters to outmanuver multiroles and reduces their cost (more DPS/cost, HP was reduced so only slightly higher HP/cost). They should be able to break even with multiroles then.

More than that would probably require a rethinking of fighter roles.

[Google Frog]

Maybe it's time to ask why we have 2 types of fighters? If we want more flex role AA a dedicated fighter isn't moving towards that goal.

[KingRaptor]

Another way to let dedicated fighters beat multiroles is to give them backwards firing weapons, so they can shoot down enemy fighters behind them, as well fire at slower targets such as gunships after passing them.

[Saktoth]

IMO, if you're going to have any dedicated AA at all, a dedicated fighter is one of the last things you should cut. I really liked the dynamic myself, though its broken now.

+1 to backwards firing weapons, it would make a part of the micro less complex (IE you can retreat just as easily as attack) but perhaps it would open up even more possibilities with manouvering. We can always give them fixedlaunchers with a high turnrate and full firing arc (this will mean, among other things, that firing backwards, the missile takes slightly longer to hit its target and is thus a mild disadvantage).

[Skasi]

I think it's great to see multirole fighter beating dedicated ones. Multiroles are your cheap fighters that can be used anywhere. Dedicated fighters are your heavy ones - they should be able to deal very high damage within a short time to take out bombers BEFORE they are able to drop their bombs. They might need some additional high-reload-time weapons, but think they are already great at doing so.

Also I think this concept is great. Fast agile fighters; heavy high-damage ones for the bombers.

[HeadHunter]

I tend to agree with Skasi. Multiroles are intended to kill BOTH air and land and be cheap. So they do not have to have high DPS vs. air targets, but this does not mean they have to suck. Basically, if one manages to tail a multirole and kill it it's perfectly fine (piloting skill dominates tech. advantage). This said, it makes more sense to launch a couple of missiles and get the bomber killed in 1 shot rather than wait for it to drop its cargo. Also multiroles are not effective in head-on attack (they miss a lot), while guided missiles of dedicated work just fine. Considering price - multirole has to be cheaper on E (like 50%), and more expensive on M(20%), have more HP(some 15%), slower to fly (10%) . It should also deal considerable damage to light armor (tanks and kbots), say kill a flash tank in 2 runs. Now they are kind of useless vs ground targets anyway, which makes building dedicated only reasonable choice.

[licho]

CA does not uses any armor types (all damage is equal) and all prices are metal = energy.

[Saktoth]

Just killing bombers is too narrow a role. Are you also proposing giving the survivability ('use anywhere') to multiroles? This would mean dedicated can only be used over your own territory, and only to stop bombers: And he can fly in with his multirole force at any time and snipe them.

Thats way too narrow.

There are several roles we need to think about here:

1. Beats other fighters (good DPS and/or HP).
2. Kills bombers quickly (DPS, reload).
3. Usable over enemy territory (HP).
4. Attacks ground.

In 1faction, it is currently AC BD. The dedicated is HP focused, capable of beating enemy fighters and gunships in a dogfight, and surviving when chasing bombers into enemy AA after a run. The multirole is DPS focused, capable of quickly killing bombers and offering light defense vs land units.

AB and CD might also work. This would create a very capable anti-ground fighter with its extra HP (something that has been a problem before but we should be able to balance it) and a mostly defensive but complete AA solution.

[Rafal]

Don't forgot about:

1. speed

The faster it is, the quicker it can respond to enemy danger somewhere. Doesn't matter that much for fighters patrolling your base, but might be crucial when you send your fighters to help your assault group fend off an air attack. Because of that it should come together with C. so they actually won't die to enemy AA immediately.

[Rafal]

Uh I am sure I typed E. not A.

[KingRaptor]

Current multirole in 2fac performs better against bombers than dedicated in closed testing.

[Saktoth]

Yes, the only thing the dedicated is better at in 2fac is survivability, and the margin is so small as to barely matter. 1fac has 300 more HP (1300), increasing its survivability and allowing it to beat (though slightly) regular fighters. I think it may be worth increasing the differentiation further.

Speed isnt a significant factor at the moment: The others have all taken a role in balance. Speed could be a factor, but its probably not significant enough to matter given how quickly planes move. The difference would need to be pronounced.

Range could also be a factor, as could firing arc (a fire-everywhere plane has no need to tail enemies), turning speed (faster response, better micro, easier to evade AA/chase enemies etc) and we could even make a fighter with missiles that require rearming (the way bombers do), for the ultimate 'up-front-kill'. There are, indeed, dozens of ways to make fighters unique and interesting: I was just focusing on the obvious and current ones.