Carriers are actually Support ships, It is really weird to see a carrier destroying a Battleship. Currently Carriers and Their size makes them look like Heavy Battleships and Their firepower is huge that can destroy a cruiser easly at close combat.
Light Battleships have no chance at close combat with a Carrier.
Carriers meant to be support ships, launch (ai controlled?) fighters or bombers to hit hostile ships. I think that is impossible to do with FL Mechanism.
Oh yeah players can dock to player ships but if they do that, people cri to faction feedback thread and It is really hard to see this happening anyway
Here some ideas
1.Carriers shouldn't use Heavy Turrets or atleast 1 Heavy Turrets so they can use Mortars to support the friedly ships.
2.Carriers should have repair turrets that can repair capital ships from long distance.
3.Let the carriers use Nano/Batts trading but remove Heavy Turrets from Carriers
4.Rework on Carriers, Change their stats and class to Battleship or Dreadnought but add them more heavy turrets and remove some of the secondary turrets
5.Carriers should have same stats with a Battlecruiser. Also it should carry same guns like Battlecruiser.
(11-18-2015, 10:27 AM)Mao Wrote: [ -> ]1. Split them in 4 classes: Ultra Light (Bustard) Light (Geb), Medium (Zephyr, Elbe, Aquilon), Heavy (Atlantis, Invincible, Nephilim*)
2. In order to make Carriers desirable, you'll have to slightly nerf the other capital ships by allowing them to mount only one docking module or no docking module.
3. a) Ultra Light Carriers should be able to have up to 2 ships docked on them, cruiser class shield and gunboat weaponry. Cruiser mobility.
b) Light Carriers should be able to have up to 3 ships docked on them, cruiser class shield and cruiser weaponry. Medium BS mobility.
c) Medium Carriers should be able to have up to 5 ships docked on them, battleship class shield and light battleship weaponry (no heavy slots). Heavy BS mobility.
d) Heavy Carriers should be able to have up to 10 ships docked on them, a new type of shield especially designed for heavy carriers (better than BS shields) and light battleship weaponry (no heavy slots). Dreadnoughts mobility.
4. The number of guns should always be smaller than on the Battleships. The Carriers should rely on their armor and docked snubs. Carriers shouldn't be able to hold their own against a BS (even a light one) without snubs support.
5*. Yes, I included the Nephilim as a heavy carrier. That's a story for another thread.
Any more ideas?
(11-15-2015, 03:32 PM)Titan Wrote: [ -> ]Carriers are actually Support ships, It is really weird to see a carrier destroying a Battleship. Currently Carriers and Their size makes them look like Heavy Battleships and Their firepower is huge that can destroy a cruiser easly at close combat.
Light Battleships have no chance at close combat with a Carrier.
Carriers meant to be support ships, launch (ai controlled?) fighters or bombers to hit hostile ships. I think that is impossible to do with FL Mechanism.
Oh yeah players can dock to player ships but if they do that, people cri to faction feedback thread and It is really hard to see this happening anyway
Here some ideas
1.Carriers shouldn't use Heavy Turrets or atleast 1 Heavy Turrets so they can use Mortars to support the friedly ships.
2.Carriers should have repair turrets that can repair capital ships from long distance.
3.Let the carriers use Nano/Batts trading but remove Heavy Turrets from Carriers
4.Rework on Carriers, Change their stats and class to Battleship or Dreadnought but add them more heavy turrets and remove some of the secondary turrets
5.Carriers should have same stats with a Battlecruiser. Also it should carry same guns like Battlecruiser.
Any more ideas?
I like some of the ideas. the repair turret idea is nice. AI fighters has been discussed before and was pretty much rejected, no idea why i like the idea.
I think carrier shields should have a 20% faster regen speed than battleships, but only have light battleship turrets (if the above s true, ai fighters, repair turret etc)
you should be able to launch (depending on the type of carrier) a squad of bombers or w/e to help you fight other caps.
I think all ships should be able to bot feed to their respective class, Caps to caps, fighters to fighters, transports to transports. so the bot feed point is moot to me, the carrier shouldnt be allowed to feed fighters in space.
(11-15-2015, 03:32 PM)Titan Wrote: [ -> ]Here some ideas
1.Carriers shouldn't use Heavy Turrets or atleast 1 Heavy Turrets so they can use Mortars to support the friedly ships.
2.Carriers should have repair turrets that can repair capital ships from long distance.
3.Let the carriers use Nano/Batts trading but remove Heavy Turrets from Carriers
4.Rework on Carriers, Change their stats and class to Battleship or Dreadnought but add them more heavy turrets and remove some of the secondary turrets
5.Carriers should have same stats with a Battlecruiser. Also it should carry same guns like Battlecruiser.
Any more ideas?
1. ...Maybe?
2. ... YES but not long range.
3. Can be abused.
4. No commment
5. No... becasue variety is nice.
(11-15-2015, 03:55 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: [ -> ]Can be abused.
this is not a valid arguement. the snac can be abused as its like one of the most successful antifighter weapons in the game, it still exists. nova torpedos can be abused killing entire clouds of fighters. POBs can and have been abused since the very moment they were introduced like the filthy crack whores they are, they still exist.
For example a cloaking carrier that hands out regens. Has been done before.
and no.... those examples of abuse you wrote are not actually abuse.
Only that it is because they are/were used for things that were not their intended purpose. but i'll leave it there because I don't expect you to understand.
(11-15-2015, 04:15 PM)Hidamari Wrote: [ -> ]Only that it is because they are/were used for things that were not their intended purpose.
That's kinda the point of the game sometimes. Creativity.
(11-15-2015, 04:15 PM)Hidamari Wrote: [ -> ]but i'll leave it there because I don't expect you to understand.
![[Image: KjcBsmA.jpg?1]](http://i.imgur.com/KjcBsmA.jpg?1)
(11-15-2015, 03:32 PM)Titan Wrote: [ -> ]5.Carriers should have same stats with a Battlecruiser. Also it should carry same guns like Battlecruiser.
arent most of the carriers gigantic.. i dont think they would be worth using at all if they had battlecruiser cores and weapons.
(11-15-2015, 04:24 PM)Hidamari Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2015, 03:32 PM)Titan Wrote: [ -> ]5.Carriers should have same stats with a Battlecruiser. Also it should carry same guns like Battlecruiser.
arent most of the carriers gigantic.. i dont think they would be worth using at all if they had battlecruiser cores and weapons.
Carriers shouldn't destroy any battleship, that was the point. Leave the armorpoints but give them BC core and Weapons(maybe lilmore weapons) also cruiser shields. Carriers shouldn't have the role of Anti-Capital. If they let the carriers use nano trading, they can be useful in battle.
Carriers shouldn't carry any battleship weapon anyway.
Really carriers have just been used as an excuse to round out various faction's ship lines to plug gaps that needed to be filled - so Bretonia and Liberty got a heavy battleship and Rheinland got a medium one.
There is literally no difference in utility between a carrier and a battleship - it's no different than the minor fluff distinction between a cruiser and a destroyer. Within the context of Freelancer itself, they're an utterly ridiculous ship class anyway considering standard battleships are already carriers, but there's neither here nor there. (I have a burning hatred for the Bretonian carrier in particular, which should never have been included, both looking terrible and making absolutely no sense.)
It's basically impossible to make carriers mechanically sound using conventional balancing, so unless Alley releases her carrier update, it'd honestly be best to just leave them as battleship variations. I'd be inclined to say no to any of these changes.