dominion fighters

posted on July 30th, 2009, 3:25 pm

i don't know if its a bug or not, but the following happened:
i played as klingons against dominion.
darth_Thanatos was dom and used is formidable fighter spam^^
so, one fighter came into the range of my towers, and i needed FOUR volleys of a klingon turrets, just to destroy one fighter. i think this is a bit too stong.
Is this a bug or just unbalanced?

posted on July 30th, 2009, 3:32 pm

Yes it is a bug that will be fixed with the next patch. DarthThanatos knows that.

Currently the Defense/Offense/System value of the Dominion fighters are 20/37/14, when they should be 5/4/1 (or with plus 2 with the upgrade).

Known bugs in FO currently (SO STOP ABUSING THEM!): Dominion fighters, C-11 Cascade Feedback, (and although not a bug--the damage will be changed because of balance issues: the Dominion A-20 Attack Destroyer).

posted on July 30th, 2009, 6:32 pm

i didn't meant that against thanatos, i thought the waay to high values of the fighters were just tooltip errors^^
i don't consider it as cheating, i think they only should be nerfed down a bit,  i like them as they are now^^

posted on July 30th, 2009, 6:39 pm

Then what about the poor neglected Avalon huh?

That comment wasn't just directed at Dominion fighters: I heard of the C-11's Cascade Feedback being abused two days ago when the person knew for sure that the ability had been screwed up since the patch... but was beginning to lose and still wanted to win.

don't consider it as cheating, i think they only should be nerfed down a bit,  i like them as they are now

Nevertheless, the fighters got the wrong stats, so unless your companion agrees that it is ok to use it, I don't see it as fair. See above example for instance. I really would hate to play with someone who would use Cascade Feedback just because they thought it was ok honestly. The devs said they'd fix these bugs, so until they are fixed, they are bugs, no?

posted on July 30th, 2009, 6:55 pm

Using fighters on your own base gives you a huge defensive advantage but it comes with a price: the more fighters you drop, the harder is to build (or re-build) a structure.

In a game against DN, I needed almost a full minute of waiting until they cleared an area big enough to rebuild my base. And you need to be there, ready, with the structure selected and the builder nearby or risk yet another fighter doing a pass and closing the area.

Think of it, sixty seconds of doing nothing. Needless to say, I built the structure, but lost the game. You do not give sixty seconds to Dominus Noctis.

So even as they currently are, the fighters are not invincible.

The battle against dna42 (Dominion vs Klingon) ended in a draw, but had he brought enough ships on his first attack, they would have crushed the fighters. As it was, he almost made it. I think he wasn't aware of that and gave me the time I needed to pile resources and deploy more fighters.

He was kind enough to send units that my cruisers could blow up and thus gain xp. At one point I had two 2-gold bar carriers and one 2-silver bars. That meant deploying 16 fighters at once.

Honestly, I don't think that, with their price tag, they are bugged, just they are properly balanced attack wise. I agree they need to be toned down seriously in shielding and armor. One turret (from any race) should be able to blow up one fighter with one volley.

posted on July 30th, 2009, 7:13 pm

As said on another thread (a few threads down) here are the current stats:

Fed -> o:5 d:6 s:2  squad size : 3  costs : 280/17/12
Dom -> o:20 d:37 s:14  squad size 3-5  costs : 118/26/15

You are getting an EXTREMELY efficient offense to cost efficiency. 20 offense, 37 defense for 40 dilithium????! That's insane!

Despite the compliments, what is important to note in our game, DarthThanatos, is that I had 5 (by the end of the game I had 7) moon pairs with constant production. You had 1 (by the end you had 2). You managed to kill of 4-5 full fleets of ships (support ships, destroyers, cruisers, and some battleships) while I destroyed your unprotected base (asides from fighters and fighter carriers... and 3 other fighting ships). That is entirely unbalanced.

posted on July 30th, 2009, 7:35 pm

I think that the problem is the fighter durability. That needs to be toned down. Actually, I think the fed fighters are underpowered, under armored (but not that much) and undershielded (but not that much, again).

In both cases, I think the stats should be 25-35 offense, 10-15 armor, and 5-7 shielding. IF you keep the same costs.

A fighter meant to attack stations needs big fire power, but as it is NOT as space ship, it cannot have the amount of armor and shielding to survive for very long. It's too small for that.

Also, having the chance to spam unlimited fighters needs to be corrected. There should be a per-carrier limit on the amount of fighters. I also don't like this launch-and-forget style. Carriers have to care for their fighters.

[dna42]

posted on July 30th, 2009, 8:13 pm

Last edited by dna42 on July 30th, 2009, 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i agree with thanatos, that surely the fed fighter schould be passed on.
but as i played against him, the damage the fighters wasn't exremly high.
it could be toned down a bit, but not much.
i think fighters could work this way:they have special energy, that doesn't regenerate, and the special energy gets used up by using the weapons.
if the energy runs out, they come back to the carrier to "recharge".

in either way, a limitation of fighters would be very good, but i think

the fed fighters should have stats like EDIT:15/10/5 and the casting costs should be highered

just my 2 cents^^

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on July 30th, 2009, 8:31 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on July 30th, 2009, 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Each Dominion fighter is, according to stats, launching an Excelsior II, or an Eresis BATTLESHIP or--need I go on? For FORTY dilithium, you get the equivalent cost of a 700 dilithium Excelsior II. Seems pretty darn ridiculous to me; aka not even within the realm of reality.

25-35 offense, 10-15 armor, and 5-7 shielding

That means that each ship lost about half the defense, but increased the offense by around 2x. Still launching BATTLESHIPS as fighters. Common, seriously?

The Beta for Fleetopos 3.0 had something like fighters with an offensive value of 15 ... and THAT was way overpowered.

There should be a per-carrier limit on the amount of fighters. I also don't like this launch-and-forget style. Carriers have to care for their fighters.

Something changing fighter mechanics is definitely needed. Not sure whether there should be a per-carrier limit, but there were a ton of suggestions previously about what could be messed around with too. Hopefully the Devs have something neat in store. 

EDIT: what do you mean by "10-15 armor, and 5-7 shielding" ... I initially read that as Defensive value and System but now I'm not too sure...

In reference to your revised fighter stats, those sound more reasonable dna42, but I wonder how much the costs would have to be increased. As I see it, fighters should be more cost efficient then building Sabers or other low tier vessels like Bugs... but not by an obscene amount of course  .

posted on July 30th, 2009, 9:34 pm

Hmmm...

Offense wise, may be they'd be at battle ship level, but defense wise they are less (or should be) than a scout. Besides that, you cannot direct the fighters, and they fire when they feel like it. Concentrated fighter volleys are very rare, and I haven't seen a fighter blow up a ship with a single shot. Excelsior II are not known by their firepower, but by their range and their torpedos, and fighters don't launch torpedos. So the comparison is not accurate.

You might get the firepower of an Excelsior II for 40 dilithium, but you don't get to control it in any way, besides a general area the fighters patrol. So you need lots of them to be reasonably sure that some will be in range to fire at the targets you want. If you had any measure of control over the fighters, I'd agree, but as things are now, toning down armor and shielding is the only suggestion I have.

Either that or re-thinking the whole fighter/carrier concept. In Starcraft, the Protoss Carrier is the most fearsome unit the Protoss can field. And you didn't have a limit on how many of them you could build. But you had only 8 fighters per Carrier and only got to rebuild lost fighters, not add more.

posted on July 30th, 2009, 9:40 pm

Sorry, I should have clarified. A Mayson Excelsior. . They are certainly known for their firepower--they are almost the most cost efficient of Mayson's forces. You can argue this anyway you pleased, but I think I have made my points clear.

In Starcraft, the Protoss Carrier is the most fearsome unit the Protoss can field. And you didn't have a limit on how many of them you could build. But you had only 8 fighters per Carrier and only got to rebuild lost fighters, not add more

Depends what you mean by most fearsome. A few Scourge can of course make quick work of a Carrier. There is no current counter to the Dominion's fighter spam.

posted on July 30th, 2009, 11:24 pm

While I agree with the 'Overstat' I like the possibility for unlimited fighters given that you can only have 5 carriers in play, managing resources well should have it's perks.

posted on July 31st, 2009, 3:59 am

They shouldnt be spamable. In my opinion the fightership carrier ability needs to be redesigned - it  should automatically launch 4 attack fighters with 12 offense/12 defense/12 system values. When 1,2,3 or all is lost they are gone till the ships special energy is recharged, which when the ability is activated again the fightership carrier launches 1,2,3 or 4 depending on how many are left out in the field. They also should follow the ship carrier and not just fly in a circle.

posted on July 31st, 2009, 10:49 am

Would it possible to get the fighters to be issued a guard order on the carrier, then they would always follow it?
It won't be in a circle, because it is not a stationary object, but it would be much more useful.
Plus, seeing the little fighters fly in close formation with the carrier might even look cooler than them circling.
If they are just always set on high movement autonomy, they should be able to fly a sufficient distance from it right?

Just throwing out ideas again.


Aimed at devs: Is the difference between following a target and circling a target in armada when a unit is set to guard based on being a stationary object or not? Or is it possible to circle a ship with the guard command?

posted on July 31st, 2009, 11:30 am

Yep, i have some changes for fighter handling planned in the future, to make them automated