On 2013-09-16 23:19, Kenny_Naboo wrote:

Quote: On 2013-09-16 22:43, Sheraton *XO* wrote: I would just like to note that to keep consistency with the Darkspace Lore fighters probably should not be named since names imply they have people inside of them and they do not in fact have pilots. The fighters are manned by AI. Because and I quote "Nobody wants to play chicken with a chemical laser." -Sheraton

Where in the lore did it state that DS fighters are UCAVs?

I didn't catch that.

On 2013-09-17 00:10, -xTc-.xisT *XO* wrote:

Quote: On 2013-09-16 23:19, Kenny_Naboo wrote: Quote: On 2013-09-16 22:43, Sheraton *XO* wrote: I would just like to note that to keep consistency with the Darkspace Lore fighters probably should not be named since names imply they have people inside of them and they do not in fact have pilots. The fighters are manned by AI. Because and I quote "Nobody wants to play chicken with a chemical laser." -Sheraton Where in the lore did it state that DS fighters are UCAVs? I didn't catch that.

"There's a reason why fighters are now unmanned. It has nothing to do with the cost, or the training. You don't have fighter pilots anymore because no one is dumb enough to try playing chicken with the brilliant glow of a chemical laser."
-- Instructor Tarin, on making it clear he had spent far too much time operating laser battery turrets


Taken from the wiki from the beam(weapons) page.haha

[ This Message was edited by: -xTc-.xisT *XO* on 2013-09-17 00:10 ]

On 2013-09-17 05:04, AlexHeartnet wrote:
What would truely make carriers useful is if their fighters could effectively patrol an entire system. You could launch them from the carrier, order one wing towards one point and another wing towards another point, and once you locate an enemy player you can order the nearest wing to start chipping away at him. This would give carriers a unique tactical role that other ship types cannot do.

Equipping the fighters with jump drives would be the way to do this. Carriers will have to be completely rebalanced though...

On a seperate note, could something be done about message spam and fighters? There is no better way to spam your message log then pressing Shift-N when you have dozens of fighters deployed.
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2013-09-17 05:40 ]

On 2013-09-17 05:39, iwancoppa wrote:
Suggestion: Make weapons fire also increase visual detectability.

On 2013-09-17 07:26, iwancoppa wrote:
ICC fighter grumble time


A. ICC fighters are just awful
B. Fleet carrier is awful
C. ICC fighters are horrible

B. The fleet carrier is pretty darn awful. Let's do some comparisons. We'll use the best non-tier 3 carrier for each faction.

Fighter bays
Agincourt(12)> Spiracle(10) > Fleet Carrier(8)

Defence
Agincourt>Fleet Carrier > Spiracle (there's a reason for this)

EWAR

Agincourt > Fleet Carrier => Spiracle


Now, looking at this, it seems that things are fairly equal. However, We need to properly consider damage and fighter bay numbers. Despite the spiracle having fewer bays, it has more damage from each fighter, resulting in aproximately equal damage to the agincourt. However..

The fleet carrier gets the double whammy of the least fighter bays AND the worst fighters.


Issue C is relating to ICC fighter damage type. All ICC fighters are kinetic! This literally means 'Press Ablative to Win' for UGTO.



So, to recap:

K'luth, the ambush/CQC faction, still gets a very good deal in the carrier department. Their fighters are by far the best giving them strong carrier cruisers. Unfortunately, paper armor and poor EWAR work against these strengths providing a balance.

ICC, the long range faction, gets the worst. With an awful fleet carrier and rubbish fighters, ICC carrier cruisers are also left with a burden of mediocrity. Only having kinectic-based fighters leaves ICC fleet carriers hideously vulnerable to UGTO vessels with ablative armor. Having the least fighter bays also means the greatest percentage loss of (already awful) DPS when an EWAR fighter is mixed in with the rest.

Change the XB-17 to fusion torpedos like all the other bombers. Less projectiles = less lag, and a different damage type to prevent 'Press ablative to Win'

Add an extra 2 fighter bays on the Fleet carrier. If ICC is going to have the worst fighters, can we at least not have the worst carrier assigned to them as well? Can we have at least some reasonable flexibility with our fighter choices without sacrificing large amounts of DPS?




Now, before someone jumps on me for using the Agincourt in comparisons instead of the 8 fighter UGTO carrier - it beat the fleet carrier in a combat test anyway. The Agincourt is also more likely to be used because it's better. I've also conveniently left out the missile + carrier dread UGTO gets.


Thanks for your time and consideration developers!






In totally unrelated news: Scarab is brutal.


[ This Message was edited by: Sheraton *XO* on 2013-09-17 14:33 ]

On 2013-09-17 14:32, Sheraton *XO* wrote:

Quote: On 2013-09-17 07:26, iwancoppa wrote: Isnip [ This Message was edited by: iwancoppa on 2013-09-17 17:33 ]

A few points:
1) Your points A and C are the same points with one word replaced.

2) I would prefer to have sabbots being launched from the xb-17 than the fusion torpedoes because of the higher damage and greater velocity of the sabbots but that is my personal preference.

3) If a UGTO ship were to equip entirely ablative armor they would be a sitting duck to the lasers on other ships. Your scenario assumes that carriers are being used in a vacuum devoid of other ships.

4)did you only consider the fleet carrier in these scenarios or did you test the other ships like the escort and carrier cruisers not to mention the Command Carrier, and the Strike Dread, all of which use fighters. Your example completely ignores the use of fighters to attack ships besides other carriers.

5)ICC has greater ECM capabilities now than the UGTO does IMO and this helps to balance out the fighter differences because we can launch the fighters while never revealing our location via scanning. I can personally cloak a carrier cruiser and fire fighters at any UGTO dread and remain utterly safe once my JD recharges the first time unless there is an accompanying support ship.

6) The Extended range lasers of the UGTO have a reasonable recharge time which renders them more balanced because they cannot just shoot down all of the fighters at once. The ICC and K'luth variants of these Extended Range Lasers only have a 50 GU difference in their range.

7) While the ICC may not "dominate" in the fighter department we more than make up for it by the fact that our weapons can hit equally hard at minimum and maximum ranges. This lends us the ability to not need to get closer to a ship in order to dish out our full DPS. Weapons like railguns, gauss guns, and the railguns on fighters can all effectively lay a beating down on another faction, particularly the k'luth with their weaker armor.

I believe that covers everything and I thank you for your paitence in listening to these points.

-Sheraton

On 2013-09-17 08:58, Pantheon wrote:
It doesn't show Rate of Fire of fighters.

Plus fighter bays cost points, if you have less, you have more of something else, so the entire point is moot really.

On 2013-09-17 16:51, iwancoppa wrote:

Quote: On 2013-09-17 14:32, Sheraton *XO* wrote: Quote: On 2013-09-17 07:26, iwancoppa wrote: Isnip [ This Message was edited by: Sheraton *XO* on 2013-09-17 18:03 ] A few points: 1) Your points A and C are the same points with one word replaced. 2) I would prefer to have sabbots being launched from the xb-17 than the fusion torpedoes because of the higher damage and greater velocity of the sabbots but that is my personal preference. 3) If a UGTO ship were to equip entirely ablative armor they would be a sitting duck to the lasers on other ships. Your scenario assumes that carriers are being used in a vacuum devoid of other ships. 4)did you only consider the fleet carrier in these scenarios or did you test the other ships like the escort and carrier cruisers not to mention the Command Carrier, and the Strike Dread, all of which use fighters. Your example completely ignores the use of fighters to attack ships besides other carriers. 5)ICC has greater ECM capabilities now than the UGTO does IMO and this helps to balance out the fighter differences because we can launch the fighters while never revealing our location via scanning. I can personally cloak a carrier cruiser and fire fighters at any UGTO dread and remain utterly safe once my JD recharges the first time unless there is an accompanying support ship. 6) The Extended range lasers of the UGTO have a reasonable recharge time which renders them more balanced because they cannot just shoot down all of the fighters at once. The ICC and K'luth variants of these Extended Range Lasers only have a 50 GU difference in their range. 7) While the ICC may not "dominate" in the fighter department we more than make up for it by the fact that our weapons can hit equally hard at minimum and maximum ranges. This lends us the ability to not need to get closer to a ship in order to dish out our full DPS. Weapons like railguns, gauss guns, and the railguns on fighters can all effectively lay a beating down on another faction, particularly the k'luth with their weaker armor. I believe that covers everything and I thank you for your paitence in listening to these points. -Sheraton

1. No, they really aren't
2. SABOTs seem quite evadeable
3. we're assuming that there are other ships with lasers? They'll be busy with the enemy laser ships etc. Not only that but ICC is quite limited in the *laser ships* department anyway.

4. The two carrier cruisers have absolutely horrible DPS and the escort carrier only has one ECM Anyway. the command carrier has less fighter bays for build drones etc and the Strike carrier is a tier 3 - most people won't be flying it

in *other combats* Fighters of both kinds seemed less effective then a simple cannon + missile dread.

5. Nope.

6. So do ICC/K'luth ER PD lasers.

7. Hooray, we don't need to close in to apply our peashooter DPS.

Quote: On 2013-09-17 08:58, Pantheon wrote: It doesn't show Rate of Fire of fighters. Plus fighter bays cost points, if you have less, you have more of something else, so the entire point is moot really.

If the points system worked flawlessly I wouldn't have made the post in the first place. Fleet carrier is bad. It really doesn't get more of *something else*. My main post outlined the problems.

On 2013-09-17 16:51, iwancoppa wrote:

Quote: On 2013-09-17 14:32, Sheraton *XO* wrote: Quote: On 2013-09-17 07:26, iwancoppa wrote: Isnip [ This Message was edited by: iwancoppa on 2013-09-17 17:33 ] A few points: 1) Your points A and C are the same points with one word replaced. 2) I would prefer to have sabbots being launched from the xb-17 than the fusion torpedoes because of the higher damage and greater velocity of the sabbots but that is my personal preference. 3) If a UGTO ship were to equip entirely ablative armor they would be a sitting duck to the lasers on other ships. Your scenario assumes that carriers are being used in a vacuum devoid of other ships. 4)did you only consider the fleet carrier in these scenarios or did you test the other ships like the escort and carrier cruisers not to mention the Command Carrier, and the Strike Dread, all of which use fighters. Your example completely ignores the use of fighters to attack ships besides other carriers. 5)ICC has greater ECM capabilities now than the UGTO does IMO and this helps to balance out the fighter differences because we can launch the fighters while never revealing our location via scanning. I can personally cloak a carrier cruiser and fire fighters at any UGTO dread and remain utterly safe once my JD recharges the first time unless there is an accompanying support ship. 6) The Extended range lasers of the UGTO have a reasonable recharge time which renders them more balanced because they cannot just shoot down all of the fighters at once. The ICC and K'luth variants of these Extended Range Lasers only have a 50 GU difference in their range. 7) While the ICC may not "dominate" in the fighter department we more than make up for it by the fact that our weapons can hit equally hard at minimum and maximum ranges. This lends us the ability to not need to get closer to a ship in order to dish out our full DPS. Weapons like railguns, gauss guns, and the railguns on fighters can all effectively lay a beating down on another faction, particularly the k'luth with their weaker armor. I believe that covers everything and I thank you for your paitence in listening to these points. -Sheraton

1. No, they really aren't
2. SABOTs seem quite evadeable
3. we're assuming that there are other ships with lasers? They'll be busy with the enemy laser ships etc. Not only that but ICC is quite limited in the *laser ships* department anyway.

4. The two carrier cruisers have absolutely horrible DPS and the escort carrier only has one ECM Anyway. the command carrier has less fighter bays for build drones etc and the Strike carrier is a tier 3 - most people won't be flying it

in *other combats* Fighters of both kinds seemed less effective then a simple cannon + missile dread.

5. Nope.

6. So do ICC/K'luth ER PD lasers.

7. Hooray, we don't need to close in to apply our peashooter DPS.

Quote: On 2013-09-17 08:58, Pantheon wrote: It doesn't show Rate of Fire of fighters. Plus fighter bays cost points, if you have less, you have more of something else, so the entire point is moot really.

If the points system worked flawlessly I wouldn't have made the post in the first place. Fleet carrier is bad. It really doesn't get more of *something else*. My main post outlined the problems.

On 2013-09-17 17:55, Sheraton *XO* wrote:

Except they aren't problems. They are the weaknesses of the particular ship IE: Fleet Carrier. And I was able to take down a bastion dread, an ead and a battle dread using the carrier cruiser. Additionally the DPS may be horrible as you claim but the ability to remain utterly invisible in a carrier cruiser means you cannot be targetted even at relatively close ranges. This means you have the ability to wear down the other ship using the death by a thousand cuts method. Now I understand that some people who like the instant gratification of seeing an opponents armor and hull drop to nothing IMMEDIATELY will find this method to be offputting. However, I have found it to work exceptionally well so far in beta.


As to the Fleet Carrier ship it has fighters but little abilities close in this applies to most of the tier 1 carrier dreads. Long story short, you have done an excellent job of outlining the fleet carriers weaknesses, and arguably the weaknesses of all figther ships is that they are very big chewtoys once you get in close. However, the fleet carrier is not the only ship the ICC has that uses fighters. I think your problem is with the fleet carrier rather than the fighters. In which case I would recommend you not use that ship if it is really as horrible as you say.

-Sheraton

On 2013-09-17 19:46, Pantheon wrote:


The point system covers more than just other weapons, it covers arcs too. So you'll find your gadgets/weapons have better coverage.