Do you guys want to keep the carrier drone?

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:59 pm

Does what it says on the tin

If there's an overwhelming response to get rid of it we will, if people are troubled by it but don't wish it to go away altogether I'll probably tie it to the SY toggle. If people are fine with it we'll leave it as is, but I've heard a few complaints in my PM box about it so we get this thread.

It might already be tied to the SY toggle actually, I'll have to check for sure when I get back to my ICE machine.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:00 pm

I'd tie it to SY, for the same reason the SY toggle exists.
Carrier drones are virtually impossible to kill with mk1 tech if it gets nanned at all.

BillyBishop · Post by **BillyBishop** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:07 pm

There was a core that had light versions of carriers without the SY toggle on, it's been so long but was it DN, anyway it's a decent enough idea to explore.

Heyoka · Post by **Heyoka** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:46 pm

Carriers are pretty important to sup when it comes to fast attack response on larger maps.

Honestly I think the carrier should only be viable for mk1/2 tech. Even then it shouldn't be impossible to kill. At late mk2/3 the carrier shouldn't be a game changer. mk2/3 tech should be the game changers.

I like the idea of a light carrier. Could also eliminate the nan option and just make carriers un-nan-able.

Compellor · Post by **Compellor** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:00 pm

This must be one of those games-are-getting-smaller issues. Two years ago we were talking about how laughably useless carriers were unless you hid them at the edge of a sector.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:53 pm

Killing the carriers wholesale would be too heavy handed. The real issue is the ripping rate - like Compellor said, since the games are smaller, we pretty much never run into the issue of the carrier being out of energy anymore. So if a team wants to defend their carrier it's easy, and if they want to sacrifice the carrier and rape the miners instead, it's relatively easy too.

So if you want to do anything, to begin with we can reduce the ripping rate. Carriers are useful even with zero ripping ability as pickup points, giant probes, lead indicator relays and of course reload stations - so to have a teleport regen rate way overmatched to today's game sizes is unnecessary.

You could even have a carrier with more HP than today so it'd last a long time under fire, but no teleport ability. The enhanced carrier research then could add this ability. Or you could only have enh/adv figs able to rip to the carrier.

Any of these changes, to various degrees, will turn carriers into strategically located assets - not disposable no-brainer-push-to-their-mining-sector-and-let-it-die assault vehicles.

phungus420 · Post by **phungus420** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:04 am

The carrier drone is an important part of the tech balance; getting rid of carrier drones with how the game is played now will be a significant nerf to the sup tech tree line. The issue with carrier drones is that it's not equal across all factions; in most cases it's balanced, however, for Belters, and to a lesser degree TF, the carrier drone can be an overpowered game changer.

For the best results for game balancing the CC devs should look at ways of changing the carrier drone for Belters (and possibly TF). Nerfing the sup tech is not a good idea right now, so the carrier drone should really be left alone for all other factions.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:08 am

I think part of that balancing issue (and others) is having nan2 float.
as it is nan2 can potentially counteract mkIII tech
how the hell are you ever supposed to kill a carrier drone early game if it's being nanned by nan2

in conclusion: stop floating nan2

phungus420 · Post by **phungus420** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:10 am

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Feb 14 2012, 04:08 PM) I think part of that balancing issue (and others) is having nan2 float.
as it is nan2 can potentially counteract mkIII tech
how the hell are you ever supposed to kill a carrier drone early game if it's being nanned by nan2

in conclusion: stop floating nan2

Another good point.

Nan2 is an advanced tech (researchable in the starbase). It really should not be a treasure.

BillyBishop · Post by **BillyBishop** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:21 am

Metz has a point of course, stopping nan2 floating is an option, actually one of the best things from XC I think was the Garr tech not being able to be stolen. Possibly make a nan3 with nan2 stats and have the replaced nan2 be halfway between the two.

Other options for carriers are slow nrg regen.