Page 5 of 6
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:19 am
by Ozricosis
Just make it a SY flag. IT's an addition to Allegiance that doesn't need to be there. Someone came up with it (Noir) because too many idiots play the game and can't seem to move as a team. Solution, make a carrier drone so all the figs can see like a scout is in sector and dock and reload? Nope, not in the 5v5 world of alleg we have now. It just doesn't fit.
Tie it to shipyard, please.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:55 pm
by GoodWill
I find carriers to be a strategically very interesting feature of the game and it would be a shame if they went away.
Nevertheless, they often are just too sturdy leading to dragging battles over the carr in the middle of a mining sector which I regularly find ridiculously OP in the early game.
So how about this (integrating several suggestions):
1. Nerf the carrier to "light carrier"
-> easier to kill early on, so still good for hit and run tactics/resupply-operations etc. but not for tanking it out forever
2. Introduce tech-path-options for carriers similar to "Adv. Constructor" that buff the carrs survivability.
3. Possibly tie in these tech-options with SUP-tech ... I guess TAC really doesnt need a heavy carrier.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:23 pm
by BillyBishop
GoodWill wrote:QUOTE (GoodWill @ Mar 2 2012, 03:55 PM) 2. Introduce tech-path-options for carriers similar to "Adv. Constructor" that buff the carrs survivability.
Giga starts with light carrier and can upgrade to standard, all others can get enh carriers.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:04 pm
by GoodWill
Oh ... in that case they all are still too bulky or the other factions should start with light carrs too.
(Do comms even invest in these carrier-upgrades?)
Either way or however you wanna call them, they are often overpowered and too sturdy.
Would nerfing their speed or turnrate be an option perhaps?
Because, besides moving into a mining zone rapidly, one thing about carriers is that they can be moved out of danger pretty easily if the comm really wants to save them. You then have that annoying situation where the carrier moves across the entire hinterlands, jumping through alephs while being followed by a swarm of enemy ints/figs and getting nanned ... In the middle of enemy-territory the carrier-side ends up having the mobility-bonus which is somehow wrong.
If carriers were sedated a bit in terms of mobility, the comm would still have the option to push that "mobile base" somewhere but would have to deal with the consequences in return.
A reduced turn-rate for example would make it harder to just turn around and flee when the other side was prepared for the carr.
A reduced overall speed makes it harder to just boost through the next aleph and get the battle-delay and proxing-options that come with this.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:52 pm
by Icky
GoodWill wrote:QUOTE (GoodWill @ Mar 2 2012, 01:04 PM) Oh ... in that case they all are still too bulky or the other factions should start with light carrs too.
(Do comms even invest in these carrier-upgrades?)
Either way or however you wanna call them, they are often overpowered and too sturdy.
Would nerfing their speed or turnrate be an option perhaps?
Because, besides moving into a mining zone rapidly, one thing about carriers is that they can be moved out of danger pretty easily if the comm really wants to save them. You then have that annoying situation where the carrier moves across the entire hinterlands, jumping through alephs while being followed by a swarm of enemy ints/figs and getting nanned ... In the middle of enemy-territory the carrier-side ends up having the mobility-bonus which is somehow wrong.
If carriers were sedated a bit in terms of mobility, the comm would still have the option to push that "mobile base" somewhere but would have to deal with the consequences in return.
A reduced turn-rate for example would make it harder to just turn around and flee when the other side was prepared for the carr.
A reduced overall speed makes it harder to just boost through the next aleph and get the battle-delay and proxing-options that come with this.
Just don't post in the balance or core development threads til you understand what's going on.
Roy's response should serve as a hint to you that you don't know enough to contribute.
Another cue - if you don't understand the various weapon types, the value of your input on core balance and development will be limited.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:22 pm
by GoodWill
"Broad hint" taken Icky.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't try to be a developer or to actually have a say or something.
Just wanted to give an "uninformed outsider impression" and make a plead to leave carriers in the non-SY game:
Please do not take away the interesting carrier-feature alltoghether ... try to find a way to balance it please.
Edit:
That last "cue" was unnecessary Icky. You actually came back here after (apparently poorly) reading that weapon-type thread to shove this into my face? Especially in a forum where blunt spam seems to be the rule, the good intention of being constructive should not be countered with a camouflaged "stfu noob". Watching carriers perform ingame is not rocket-science and I was merely backing up ideas that have somehow already been posted in the hope that the carrier doesn't get taken out. ~200h of ingame play don't qualify me as a core-developer, I knew that already thanks. But that "cue" of yours is just a dickhead-move. Next time you consider an active members posting useless, just ignore it instead of getting all high and mighty. Just a suggestion ...
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:46 pm
by DonKarnage
What if you replaced the carrier with a player-driven medium ship with a small rip receiver, and moved the one we have now to having a shipyard (not just the flag)?
Think a gunship with a small rip receiver and no turrets. (or nan turrets, maybe?)
If you think that's an exceedingly dumb idea worth raging over, I'd like to hear the reasons why
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:12 pm
by qqmwoarplox
DonKarnage wrote:QUOTE (DonKarnage @ Mar 2 2012, 03:46 PM) What if you replaced the carrier with a player-driven medium ship with a small rip receiver, and moved the one we have now to having a shipyard (not just the flag)?
Think a gunship with a small rip receiver and no turrets. (or nan turrets, maybe?)
If you think that's an exceedingly dumb idea worth raging over, I'd like to hear the reasons why
you really are a sadomasochist
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:03 am
by aptest
From my previous thread, one of my main conclusions is that carriers should become considerabely more prolific in this game. Carriers are a supremancy team's answer to interceptors, being an immovable bone that can be shoved right up an expansion team's backside despite "super-awsome whorepower" (because a sup team's answer to that is constant re-enforcements).
Carriers should be difficult to deal with with MK1/2 tech. They should allow the using team to force a massive neverending "FU we know how to nan" furball on whichever sector they want, and allow a sup team to persecute an expansion team's miners with impunity, forcing the expansion team to relocate miners elsewhere. Their mere presence should allow a supremancy team to put their flag on an opposing op sector and say "it is OUR sector now". They are the compensation sup teams get for flying slow-ass bricks with irrelevant missiles and paper shields.
I think it's an ok idea to make carriers cheaper and somewhat more fragile. Then put in SUP some upgrades for it and maybe add an "advanced carrier drone" that is faster, more durable and more stealthy in ADV sup.
And for the love of blah, don't remove carriers from the game.
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:31 pm
by lexaal
Just lower the turn-rate and it is harder to turn arround!