| Author |
Fighters Are Insanely Broken |
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
|  Posted: 2009-01-23 14:24
Okay. So we all know that when a bunch of Carriers go at it they lag the server up like nobody's business, right? Turns out it's much, much worse. A single Carrier can generate immense amounts of lag if left to its own devices.
As a test, I got out an ICC Carrier Cruiser and found a nice, quiet spot in Cassiopeia. I targeted an Inferno planet and began launching fighters from only one of my four fighter bays.
Now the way fighters generally work is that you launch them, they attack the target for awhile, and then return to base. Since their "lifespan" is much longer than the cooldown for the fighter bays, you can launch wave after wave of fighters and steadily increase the number of them you have attacking a target, up until the point that the first wave of fighters you launched reaches the end of their lifespan and turns around to come home.
So I paid attention to two things: the time it took for my fighter bays to recharge and launch another fighter, and the lifespan of a single fighter. I set my Camera on the very first fighter I launched, to keep track of him, and then kept launching more. I noticed fairly quickly that I could launch a new fighter every thirty seconds. The fighters I had out grew steadily.
Eventually, my first fighter returned to base...after six minutes. By the time he landed, I had TWELVE fighters buzzing around. And remember, this was using only one of my four fighter bays. If I'd been using all four, I could have deployed no less than FORTY-EIGHT fighters.
All from a single Carrier Cruiser.
Assuming that these two time limits are roughly the same across all levels and factions, that means that the UGTO Agincourt Carrier, with its eight fighter bays, can have a whopping 96 fighters in the air, while the Command Stations--with 12 bays--can deploy ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR.
And again, that's from a single ship/station. Imagine if you had multiple players all launching fighters continuously.
Of course, in practice, you don't see these mind-boggling swarms of fightercraft is because it takes time to get them all in the air, and enemy point-defenses are constantly shooting them down. Most ships, in particular ICC equipped with Pulse Beams, can take out a wave of fighters in a single pass.
Against most targets, fighters have a certain "critical mass," that is, when you can launch enough of them at once that the target can't shoot down all of the first wave before the second wave arrives, so that you can keep adding fighters to the swarm that is attacking. This number is generally around four to six fighter bays. The problem is that once you reach and surpass this critical mass, the number of fighters flying around gets incredibly high very quickly.
And of course we're not even considering how much damage those fighters are actually doing. Each one only has a single gun, but dozens of them would be able to shred a Dreadnought quite rapidly.
In order to avoid mind-boggling amounts of fighter lag, I suggest a new system. Instead of launching fighters at a steady rate and building up a swarm, Carriers should launch a large group all at once, but then be limited as to how many they can have in the air.
A similar system is currently in place for ship-launched bombs. A single bomb-bay has an ammo count of 12, and once it launches all 12 it cannot launch more until those bombs hit the target--even if it has a supply ship reloading it. The bomb bay is greyed out until the first bombs hit.
My idea is to have each fighter bay launch a fighters at once--similar to the way some heavy missile launchers can launch two missiles at once--but then be unable to launch more until the first group is destroyed or returns to base. This way, Carriers have a consistent, steady amount of fighters deployed, which also better-regulates how much damage they do.
They would also have a short cooldown, so that they could quickly get replacement fighters launched and thus keep up the pressure on a single target... at least, until they ran out of fighters. Because unlike right now, fighter bays would NOT be reloadable by Supplies. They could only be replenished in orbit of a planet. This restricts Carriers from simply launching wave after wave of fighters to overwhelm a target, no matter how heavy its point-defenses.
This might require some rebalancing of ship designs, but overall I think it would make fighters more balanced and less laggy.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2009-01-23 14:39
Fixing ammo limits on fighter bays...
This kind of testing is just what we need.
Thanks.
[ This Message was edited by: Drafell on 2009-01-23 14:56 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Destroh Phaytus
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 28, 2006
Posts: 74
From: There.....RIGHT THERE!!!!
| Posted: 2009-01-23 15:46
I've got another fighter related issue (not sure)...it involves the ICC/UGTO interceptors (not sure if this affects UGTO...as I don't play them). Now I know that most people do not use interceptors, but I use them from time to time to see how they fare compared to the other fighters.
What I notice while using them is that they approach an enemy ship...get within firing range but do not fire, and turn away for their next run.
I tested how an interceptor performed against a stationary target versus a moving target. The target was myself in a Command Carrier using FI-8 interceptors.
Against the stationary target, the interceptor fired it's beam on all it's passes. But against the moving target it did not fire at all, it just turned away.
I am wondering if the interceptors can be made to pull away from their target at a closer distance than what it is now so they have some chance of hitting their target with their beams.
[edit] I forgot to mention that the interceptors usually fire their beams at around 90 to 120 gus from their target
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Lord Prometheus *COM* on 2009-01-23 15:49 ]
_________________
DANCE WITH ME!!!
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2009-01-23 16:10
But I don't think fighters work that way if you target a hostile ship or building. I've done this same thing in my hive targeting myself. I can launch dozens of fighters who never seem to return. But when I launch them at hostile ships they behave normally; they attack a few times and return or get shot down.
And interceptors seem utterly useless right now. They have shorter ranges, their beams do no damage, and they are too difficult to use in their primary role as interceptor. Their beam weapons are good for shooting down enemy missiles and fighters, but there's no way to launch them for that purpose with any kind of efficiency.
If there were a system in place where we could target a friendly ship or ourselves, launch these interceptors, and have them "escort" the ship and defend vs incoming missiles and fighters (or do the same with a friendly planet, a gate, even a point in space) it could work. And they defend their target or the area surrounding their target until they run out of fuel and have to return to the mothership (fuel would naturally last longer on an interceptor).
Interceptors absolutely suck vs ships. Even the kluth tarsus with it's disruptor sucks. They suck almost as bad as mines (which btw, 40 AM mines does 14% damage to a ganglia's organic armor?)
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2009-01-23 16:15 ]
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
