Poll: Buff dedicated fighter

[Google Frog]

How about nerf multirole AA damage?

[Saktoth]

Im not sure, the dedicated fighter is still much better over enemy territory, and i sort of like that people are using multiroles again.

Whatever we do, we need to fix the dynamic between these two so that both are viable: after the multiroles ground damage nerf, there was no reason to make it over dedicated, until Licho's silly intentional shadow buffs made the multirole better at dogfighting.

[Google Frog]

Well there are only a few roles that a fighter can do, each type needs at least one:

• Damage ground
• Beat the other type in a dogfight
• Speed for high response time
• Good against bombers/gunships (this has a few sub roles such as low/high HP air)
• Resistant to AA

Those 5 general roles need to be balanced between each type so that there is reason to make both. Currently multirole wins at the top 3, both are so good against bombers that 4 doesn't matter and dedicated fighters are marginally better at 5.

This poll just has the general statement 'buff'. Buff how? A cost buff is the most neutral role-wise but all it would do is switch people to dedicated spam as the ground attack is not particularly useful.

[KingRaptor]

Well I'd definitely want dedicated to be better at number 2 at least. No. 3's value is map dependent, and 4 is closely related to 2.

We could make dedicated very good at no. 5 so it's good for fighter sweeps to destroy the enemy's fighters in his territory, but I don't want that to be dedicated's only role.

[KingRaptor]

Winner: Yes (71%)

[KingRaptor]

Given the huge number of abstentions, I'd be very cautious with any buffs we decide to make.

A maneuverability buff (I have one ready to commit) should improve dedicated fighter performance against multirole without making it too powerful in general.

[licho]

I wanted to experiment more with roles. For example you could make the cheaper fighter "interceptor" - fast, agile, high attack but crappy hp. They could be stealthy or even time limited cloakable.

And the big one multirole fighter which can stays in area for longer, can attack ground but is less cost effective vs air, especially vs interceptors, due to poor turnrate.

Multirole would then be better vs gunships (its slower and has higher reload) and interceptor vs fixed wing (fast with low rof (burst and then reload probably))

[Google Frog]

I know the dedicated fighter is currently useless but I voted against buff because it is mainly multirole that needs nerfing. Also buffs are generally boring and I want something more along the lines of Licho's experimentation ideas.

[KingRaptor]

Licho's idea sounds good; in fact, since multirole currently beats dedicated fighter already, we could just move ground attack to dedicated fighter (i.e. swap their roles).

[Saktoth]

*sigh* Everyone auto-abstained. I didnt vote because i havent made up my mind and want a more nuanced solution as has been said.

I wish you'd have brought this up Licho instead of shadow-buffing until we have such balance problems. You even said Google would object to changes (clearly not!). See, we arent so bad if you'd just trust us with your ideas Licho and collaborate with us on design changes.

I dont want to see a sort of dedicated anti-gunship fighter, id rather have a dedicated anti-fighter gunship! Gunships are much too weak vs planes. The multirole can be better vs gunships, but only if the interceptor is already terrible. I really really dont think it should be a hard counter, especially if it also attacks ground!

Your proposition doesnt really change anything other than AA survivability though, Licho. If the interceptor really is better vs bombers and fighters than the multirole, its ability to run through AA is the only thing that swaps (which sorta makes sense on a ground attack plane).

So, reverting the speed changes and generally swapping the HP vs DPS relationships (maybe the weights?) may make more sense.

Moving the ground attack would probably require weapon changes. Perhaps we can implement this in 1faction, where all the crazy stuff is going on ATM.

[Google Frog]

*sigh* Everyone auto-abstained. I didnt vote because i havent made up my mind and want a more nuanced solution as has been said.

I use a 'no' vote as a placeholder until I make my mind up. No can always be changed to yes later but yes can be hard to change back once something has been implemented.

[HeadHunter]

Some ideas for you: 1. Multirole fighters are supposed to be effective vs air AND ground. They are not supposed, however, to hover in a single area for long time. Air superiority fighters are not supposed to target ground at all, but they are supposed to be effective at taking out enemy air. This is general rule. 2. It should not matter for fighters what kind of air is the target. 3. Make dedicated fighters have more speed, maybe stealth, impossible to hit by flak and lasers. 4. It does not matter that multirole has worse missiles. It has same ones. It just means that dedicated one can survive much longer in heavy AA, fight against multiple targets by having more shots at once and probably have more DPS.

So, in terms of strategy - multirole fighter is a general patrol unit - it can take out scouts, unarmored ground and bomber packs. They are not supposed, however, to be effective in fight over enemy territory, because they suck vs static AA. Superiority fighters are supposed to take out several fighters making a screen in particular area, so that bombers can pass through. After that they may even have to return to base for reload (e.g. 5 shots, each kills a single enemy fighter). They can also have superior speed for fast response against gunship raids. They are not supposed to be effective against flying fortress however due to reload landings.

some numbers

multirole: Laser cannon/small bombs vs. ground, damage around 100(take out a mex), guided missiles vs bombers and other flying stuff, high damage, reasonable reload. around 1000 hp.

Superiority: Missile pack, up to 5 double-shots, each deals like 600 damage and takes out any fighter. Need to reload, are not supposed to be set on patrol. Have extremely high speed for limited time after takeoff - e.g. 2x of air scout. So the idea is that they can cross front line, engage enemy fighters and clear a path for bombers. And die in process, of course. They might be made invulnerable to static AA while flying full-speed.

This is just IMHO.

[Google Frog]

Try again without special target categories.

[KingRaptor]

Winner: Discuss further (72%)