Carriers need SY tag

Discussion / Announcement area for Dark Nebulae Core development.
Grimmwolf_GB
Posts: 3711
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Grimmwolf_GB »

Since we moved to a new board, Ihave to reopen the thread. Carriers are small game cheese and need the SY tag.
CronoDroid
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by CronoDroid »

Seconded. Agreed, especially with Tac/Patty Rush, just way too much in a small game.

1. Push them through the enemy op sector to their ref
2. Kill their miners, if fail, PU at carrier
3. Periodically fight off attacks
3a. Distract the enemy with the carrier while you freely mine
4. Nan the carrier, when podded, PU at carrier, rip back in, nan again
5. When bomber comes, rip carrier out
6. Nan carrier
7. Repeat as desired

Those were the basic points, I believe.
jgbaxter
Posts: 2181
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:00 am

Post by jgbaxter »

Completely agree Grimm.

As I said before, give a light carrier type thing in garrison, if sy tag is on change it to the regular carrier, and what the heck, don't allow enh carriers without sy built maybe?
n.b. I may not see a forum post replied to me or a pm sent to me for weeks and weeks...
Gandalf2
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:00 am
Location: W. Midlands, UK

Post by Gandalf2 »

I reckon if there was a poll on this, 75% plus would be in favour of moving carrier to SY.
Image
Image
spideycw - 'This is because Grav is a huge whining bitch. But we all knew that already' Dec 19 2010, 07:36 PM
Raveen
Posts: 9104
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Birmingham, UK
Contact:

Post by Raveen »

Noir doesn't make changes based on public opinion.
ImageImage
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
Grimmwolf_GB
Posts: 3711
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Grimmwolf_GB »

Also, I am NOT talking about moving the carrier to the SY. I am talking about binding the carrier to the SY tag, as Noir did it with the fighter bombers, XRM, etc...
Bard
Posts: 4263
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Within your command center, enacting fatal attacks upon your conscripts
Contact:

Post by Bard »

I'm going to have to second this.

Carrier rushing is a lame strat in smaller ( < 20 v. 20 ) games.

I think the ability to "turn off" carriers should exist.
ImageImageImageImageImage
Image Omnia Mutantur, Nihil Interit.
BootHappy
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am

Post by BootHappy »

How about slower carrier energy regen and carrier don't pick up pods.
made me laugh, made me cry, made me bitch at people to probe.
jgbaxter
Posts: 2181
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:00 am

Post by jgbaxter »

Grim I understand what you mean, I agree that carriers should have the sy tag.

However, I'm also saying that standard and enh carriers are too limiting overall...

in relation to both those points above, and the fact that many comms are used to carriers one way or another; we should have a light carrier always available in garrison, if sy is on it allows comm to upgrade to a standard carrier, and if that is researched, then enh carriers should be available to be researched in the shipyard.

/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
n.b. I may not see a forum post replied to me or a pm sent to me for weeks and weeks...
NightRychune
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am

Post by NightRychune »

Changes are already being planned for carriers.
Post Reply