Missles, fighters, and point defense

[Chasm]

I am guessing at one point missles and fighters were MUCH more difficult to destroy, and had sharper teeth, but at this point in the game they are very weak. A primary issue is that medium weapon mounts can actually hit them (defending fleet turtles, rides out the 2 or 3 waves, mops up). Perhaps only point defense systems should be able to destroy missles/fighters? (point defense including interceptors, and anti missle systems).
If I am understanding right, Heavy weapons mounts are spinal mounts (no equal on current ships), Medium mounts are the equal of current heavy anti ship turrets (think IRL battleship turrets), and point defense are the smaller guns that have more mobility and can hit anything but at a shorter range. I would be very interested to test a build like this, assuming it wasn't a nightmare to make.

[bjg]

They manage to destroy one or two of my ships if I'm not careful enough (in planning), so I wouldn't call them exactly weak. Somehow they play much better in the hands of AI, I still cant figure out how to "cook" them right.

[Chasm]

An even match in hulls, and if we make a mistake lose 1 or 2 ships, they get wiped out. Not really what I call balanced... ATM endgame weapon mix is sorta cookie cutter, I would prefer a more rock / paper / scissors mix (Missle/High Energy Beam/Kinetic) as opposed to 1 size fits all.

[Zaskow]

Agree here. In late game carriers become pointless completely. Advanced fighters should get more HP and evasion. Missiles too.

[Arioch]

Missiles were overpowered for a long time, and at the moment they're a bit underpowered. The pendulum will swing again as we do balance passes.

Fighters have always been a little underpowered, and that's something we'll address. The different fighter types are kind of half-implemented.

[Chasm]

Perhaps a design system similar to how planetary defenses are designed? It would also keep the player in the know for what tech advances improve their fighters.

[bjg]

I wouldn't call missiles exactly underpowered. They bypass shields (so do interceptors, I think). Is that intentional?

[mute]

Agree here. In late game carriers become pointless completely. Advanced fighters should get more HP and evasion. Missiles too.

Much as the battleship is pointless today. Technology advances, older systems are obsoleted. In space, beams are supreme. My late game carriers serve as second line units filled with assault shuttles and bedecked with point defense to deal with missile spam or bomber fleets - they're quite good at it.

[Zaskow]

Missiles were overpowered for a long time, and at the moment they're a bit underpowered. The pendulum will swing again as we do balance passes.

Fighters have always been a little underpowered, and that's something we'll address. The different fighter types are kind of half-implemented.

Simple decision: make normal weapons ineffective vs. fighter and missiles, because now it's pointless to make dedicated anti-missile/fighter ships.

Much as the battleship is pointless today. Technology advances, older systems are obsoleted. In space, beams are supreme. My late game carriers serve as second line units filled with assault shuttles and bedecked with point defense to deal with missile spam or bomber fleets - they're quite good at it.

Modern missile cruisers take this place. Different universes - different weapons. In Mass Effect, for example, beams have use only as anti-fighter weapons.

[Arioch]

Simple decision: make normal weapons ineffective vs. fighter and missiles, because now it's pointless to make dedicated anti-missile/fighter ships.

There's no shortage of balancing levers to push on. It's just a case of massaging things until the balance is right. We're busy working on new systems right now and not paying much attention to fine balance.

[evil713]

a better option would be to make standard weapons have an accuracy penalty when dealing with missiles and fighters.

[Arioch]

a better option would be to make standard weapons have an accuracy penalty when dealing with missiles and fighters.

I'm pretty sure we currently do that.

[sven]

a better option would be to make standard weapons have an accuracy penalty when dealing with missiles and fighters.

I'm pretty sure we currently do that.

Yeah, we do, but I'm not certain we do it *enough*. I'm hoping to have time to finally get to those fighter rule adjustments we've all been waiting for, and when I do, I'm going to take another look at the hit bonus/penalties given to missiles and small craft.