+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Carriers idea (/showthread.php?tid=162013)
RE: Carriers idea - Mr.Mike. - 06-15-2018
(06-15-2018, 11:46 AM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: Realism in a video game, especially Freelancer, is a very bad argument. I'm 100% this will not make it into the game because this is absolutely not needed. If you want to have a different experience, don't try to bend the game to your will but try another game. Freespace 2 for example. It does have carriers as well. Heavy armed ones, I might add.
I cite realism as an example only as a world history, and logic as common sense. Do you really think that the carrier can have heavy weapons, high armor and at the same time keep the size of the battleship + transport the support ships ( bombers, fighters )?
If you think that there is no realism in the freelancer, why do carriers have the characteristics of a battleship (even more powerful)? I just can not understand why the carrier has higher characteristics than the battleship. If this is a balance issue, then why was it necessary to introduce these ships into the game at all?
RE: Carriers idea - Titan* - 06-15-2018
(06-15-2018, 10:34 AM)Mr.Mike. Wrote: So, in connection with the appearance of Drone Bays, I propose to introduce the following changes:
Bretonia:
CharacteristicsBretonia "Invincible"-class Carrier (Before the changes)Bretonia "Invincible"-class Carrier (After the changes)Weapons0/25 ( 2 heavy turrets, 4 primary turrets, 19 secondaries )0/15 ( 0 heavy turrets, 2 primary turrets, 13 secondaries )Hull strength2,300,0001,500,000Power output9,000,0009,000,000Power Rechange300,000300,000
Liberty:
CharacteristicsLiberty "Atlantis"-class Carrier (Before the changes)Liberty "Atlantis"-class Carrier (After the changes)Weapons0/27 ( 2 heavy turrets, 4 primary turrets, 21 secondaries )0/16 ( 0 heavy turrets, 2 primary turrets, 14 secondaries )Hull strength1,900,0001,300,000Power output9,000,0009,000,000Power Rechange300,000300,000
This will change the class of carrier ships radically. But let's have a closer look.
this change seems too much but i agree with reducing weapon amount because LAC still very strong even with nerfed stats
LAC currently have no heavy weapons and got new 6.000.000/200.000 powercore but its still enough to tank other light/medium battleships and kill them (if you have 4 standard prims)
LAC with drone is pretty strong against smaller ships like gunboats/cruisers/battlecruisers and even light battleships. I think reducing armor to 1.3mil and 1.5mil seems too much, i agree that they need less tanking ability than a battleship but Bretonia Carrier is large as a Bismarck and Liberty Carrier is large as a Kusari Battleship.
Nerfing carrier armor less than a Battlecruiser is bad idea, because they are way more bigger than a Battlecruiser.
Highest Cruiser Survivability : 3.600.000 point - Nomad Cruiser
Lowest Battlecruiser Survivability : 5.400.000 point - Core BC/ Gallic BC
Highest Battlecruiser Survivability : 6.400.000 point - Hellfire BC / Nomad BC
Lowest Battleship Survivability : 6.600.000 point - Order BS / Core BS etc
And there is Light Carriers, its not just Bretonia and Liberty, dont forget about others;
Rheinland Carrier
Zoner Carrier
Crayter Carrier
Liberty Carrier
Coalition Carrier
Bretonia Carrier
If Liberty Carrier gonna get 1.3mil armor, that means Crayter Carrier will get around 900K armor.
Tbh they dont really need that much armor nerf but nerfing armor by like 100k or 200k will be enough instead of reducing their survivability less than a battlecruiser.
Powercore also important here, If you nerf their powercore that will also affect their tanking ability. I still think powercore nerf for LAC wasnt enough but it is very close, nerf to their armor little bit will be enough.
when LAC had Heavy BS powercore it was able to tank any light/medium battleship with just 21 secondary turrets (doesnt matter if medium bs attacking with Cerberus loadout)
(06-15-2018, 10:34 AM)Mr.Mike. Wrote: Weapons:I can guarantee that dev team not going to accept these weapons unless they want to make them overoverpowered
5k projectile speed and 3k range 10.00 refire weapon is very very overpowered. It is basically a hit-scan weapon like nomad pulse beam and 3k range is pretty much enough to deal constant damage to a cruiser and not going to miss
Carrier doesnt need more offensive weapon if its going to be support/drone support ship so it should have support weapons than offensive weapons
I think Carriers should get their own Primary Class Long Range Missile(LRM) Launcher. Carrier Missile launcher should be anti-shield,fast reload,long range but high energy cost and Vertical Launcher.
If Carrier going to be support ship then it doesnt need tanking ability, so reducing primary amount to 1 will be nice so you can mount your missile launcher.
(06-15-2018, 10:34 AM)Mr.Mike. Wrote: Drone Bays:
I agree that Carriers should have fighter drones but when i was in Dev team, none of the devs wanted the Fighter Drones. Carrier is nearly impossible to kill with 4 or 5 Fighter and if its going to deploy a fighter every 60 second, it will be nothing but death trap for Fighter group and can cause issues for Fighter brawls like some lolwut carrier can interfere with a good fighter brawl.
RE: Carriers idea - sasapinjic - 06-15-2018
I agree with most @Titan remarks .
Carriers should have Only Secondary Weapons for defensive purpose and maybe missile launchers for Support role , without any other Heavy and Primary weapons .
RE: Carriers idea - LaWey - 06-15-2018
Balanced Drone- missile carrier would be veeery neat for players with lags. Agreed fully with Titan, give them their own missile silos, make true support/command ship.
RE: Carriers idea - TheShooter36 - 06-15-2018
or keep 4 primary slots but convert them to carrier LRM silos. Each firing a missile. Hullbuster and Shieldbuster variants, very hard to flak Well better i give stats.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Hercules Long Range Armor Piercing Missile SiloRE: Carriers idea - Reddy - 06-15-2018
agree with titan. carriers are meant to be support caps and they shouldn't be able to tank battleships. a missle and drone platform as a carrier sounds very fun for commanders
RE: Carriers idea - Aazalot - 06-16-2018
The thing with Carriers atm is they dont fit a purpose within the mod since docking bays sort of dont work (at least as far as i know they dont). Personally i think carriers SHOULD be second to battleships in regards to weapons maybe not so much hull strength but they arnt meant to be front line vessels.
Rather then using Real life an example look at other games
In the homeworld series most notably Homeworld 2 the Carrier is a full on support vessel that builds and maintains wings of snub craft it has a high amount of hull because it acts as a secondary command ship but its only weapons are anti snub cannons.
If you look at Strike suit Zero the carrier Arcadia which is your base is a powerful capital ship with some anti capital weapons but again was still outgunned by full on battleships for it has 2 Anti cap weapons and battleships had 6 however the battleships relied on on the Arcadia along with its Anti Fighter weapons and Fighter wings to deal with enemy wings.
You even see a small example in Starfox/Nintendo, The greatfox is essentially a carrier command ship it has 2 big ol cannons which are powerful but thats all it has, when pitted against battleships it was out classed it was up to the Arwings to do the grunt work.
I think that Carriers should be hard to kill because they are in essence mobile bases, however i think they shouldn't pack as much firepower as a front line battleship, they are meant to be the 2nd line behind battleships and battlecruisers, supplying supporting long range fire and fighters. Of course as i said at the beginning of my post right now Carriers cant really do anything with fighters due to the docking module issues so its more finding a way to let them fill their role maybe the drones are the key to it as long as they are done right, however that being said, this does mean that a way to counter said drones properly also needs to be considered. I think in general Carriers are okay, they just need to be put into their role properly.
RE: Carriers idea - Jessitrescott - 06-16-2018
buffing carrier hull = bad idea, they should be easily killable and shouldn't be dreadnoughts
giving more firepower= just rename them into battleships
drones= annoying to deal with, dont pop up in scanners and you'll have to find it in the mess
docking modules= i literally dont see any use for docking modules pepole have acess to playerlists so there is no suprise fighters launching and killing enemies. (avoiding radiation damage is the only use i can even think off).
lets just remove carriers or just turn them into battleships.
RE: Carriers idea - Mr.Mike. - 06-18-2018
To begin with, I would like to say that the idea is not aimed at ensuring that carriers generally ceased to exist moved to another class of ships. No. I suggest simply making them as support, not as a combat unit. Find ships on the radar - nonsense, you can easily find the ships of the Cultists, and so can these (I think you now understand the principle of how ships operate on carriers).
As for Titan's remarks, I would like to answer that there is not a certain percentage of the reduction in strength/quantity of weapons. We do not need to make it so that there is the strongest carrier and the weakest. I think that the question of strength and quantity of weapons should remain on the opinion of the administration. What kind of weapons will be used on carriers is also their business (but I hope that it is secondary, not as battleships).
The very idea of transferring carriers in accordance with their class is still relevant.
Waiting for comments ( and I need opinion of Admins and Devs ).
RE: Carriers idea - Mr.Mike. - 06-19-2018
Bump!