| Author |
Replace the Command Carrier |
Dakili
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 07, 2007
Posts: 86
From: Quebec
|  Posted: 2012-06-23 00:09
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-22 23:42, Brutality *XO2* wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-22 23:29, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
I think some people need to read the dev log from time to time...
1.674
Something something Command Auras something something maybe.
And in Alpha.
Command Auras.
Now close the thread already.
|
|
What's the point of such a device if the ship that has it it can't defend itself? In the end the CC isn't used because of its lack of armament and I doubt auras would do much to change that.
|
|
You seriously think they will put the auras withouth changing a few things to the ship?
_________________
Would you be quite gentle as to take this coffee cup in the face and get knocked uncounscious my dear friend.
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2012-06-23 00:26
I'm assuming they are intelligent people and will come up with something that will make things fair and fun.
And if the first iteration doesn't work, then tweak things until a good compromise is reached.
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2012-06-23 00:57
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-23 00:09, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-22 23:42, Brutality *XO2* wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-22 23:29, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
I think some people need to read the dev log from time to time...
1.674
Something something Command Auras something something maybe.
And in Alpha.
Command Auras.
Now close the thread already.
|
|
What's the point of such a device if the ship that has it it can't defend itself? In the end the CC isn't used because of its lack of armament and I doubt auras would do much to change that.
|
|
You seriously think they will put the auras withouth changing a few things to the ship?
|
|
From my last conversations with the dev in charge of ship design, yes, that had been their intent. The Command Carrier was expressly meant to hang back and support the long-ranged vessels because ICC is a long-range faction.
EDIT: They'd lose build drones in favour of aura.
It is because of the auras that I feel now is the best time to petition a change, as the notion that ICC is long-ranged is antiquated and in severe need of updating. ICC is neither defensive nor long-ranged, and any design that focuses on ICC being either is antique.
If not now, when should we ask for changes?
[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2012-06-23 00:58 ]
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2012-06-23 05:53
the CC is just a bad fit for ICC. ICC isnt the defensive faction, or the long range faction, as it once was (as we are always being reminded when we say otherwise). The red-headed stepchild of DS has no real "role" atm, so it is hard to say what their ships should be like.
Best I could figure, is that they are just simply supposed to be not as good as UGTO, other than that I cant see any real design there anymore.
Why do I say this here? As pointed out, UGTO gets a new laser that can PD the fighters that were just made to stay out of PD range.
UGTO faction specialties: Flux cannon, flux wave, special armors.
ICC faction specialties: Shields, pulse shields (I tried unsuccessfully not to laugh as I typed that), pulse beams.
Sorry, but the two in no way compare.
Now we are told that UGTO is supposed to be the fighter faction. Ok, I guess they needed something else that they could specialize in. System damage, heavy damage, equivelant missle range/damage to ICC, yes, they also need to be the paragons of fighter combat.
_________________
bucket link
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2012-06-23 06:14
Your words ring so true to my heart Azreal. ;_; When I hear UGTO are ALSO meant to be superior at energy management my heart sinks six feet under.
Though, ICC's specialty is having a little more range on their torpedoes and their guns do more damage past a certain distance than UGTO's guns do.
However, this thread isn't to gripe about ICC design being mysterious but more that the Command Carrier is an outdated ship design that needs really needs fixing, and I see no strong justification to keep a Fighter ship on ICC.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2012-06-23 07:23
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-23 06:14, Bardiche wrote:
However, this thread isn't to gripe about ICC design being mysterious but more that the Command Carrier is an outdated ship design that needs really needs fixing, and I see no strong justification to keep a Fighter ship on ICC.
|
|
My point was, that since we don't know wth ICC is supposed to be good at anymore, how can we debate what type of ship should be the COMMAND SHIP for that faction?
One problem is, the missles for the two human are identicle. You can only give ICC more, which will then in turn be pd'd no problem. And ICC already has a bunch of missle spitters. It already has fighters, which makes it not-so-bright. You could give it those IC and lighter cannons, but then, ICC already has a pretty nifty cannon dread. So, what are we left with for them? Mining beams, mines, a build and supply duty. Oh, and that WoW-style aura thing something-something-who-knows-wtf-it-is. I'm guessing they get one of those/some of them.
I just think that you cant discuss a new C C layout without running into these issues.
_________________
bucket link
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2012-06-23 07:27
Just because something may be a faction's specialty, doesn't mean the entire faction must revolve around it.
IIRC, fighters were meant to be more powerful than they are now (deployed as commandable wings, etc.) that weren't full on retard. Even now without that fact, fighters are still very damn effective. At least, against non-luth.
This entire thread is probably just because of the UGTO Command Dread.
I don't personally think the ICC CC needs to be changed. I think this monster needs to be changed.
If you're going to turn an Assault-class command ship to have enough direct firepower to make a Battle Dreadnaught blush, something is seriously amiss.
I would argue to replace the UGTO Command Dreadnaught's armament with fighters as well. There is just cause for any ship to have any kind of real firepower like that.
-Ent
_________________
|
µOmniVore
Grand Admiral
Joined: September 13, 2006
Posts: 171
| Posted: 2012-06-23 08:35
To all the nay sayer the ICC Command ship is great, just needs some fixes
1. give the CC a long range scanner for fighter support and bombing
2. give the ICC a heavy fighter so the current CC is useful fighters don't do enough damage to justify the current CC
3. allow Build drones and reload drones to be interchangeable - could only be a CC(all factions) ability
4. the ICC CC needs cannons plain and simple, should have enough cannons to drive off cruisers so maybe 4forward 4aft and 2-all arcs or give it 4-360 ion cannons
5. Give all CC repair aura - could be a smaller range maybe 250gu so it isn't abused
6. please increase CC resource storage limits to maybe 6-8,
The ICC CC as it is is nothing but a non gankable engineering ship but other than that it poses no threat to any ship. Command ships should be a jack of all trad ship since it is meant to command battles.
_________________
When we fail to dream we fail as a society.
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1158
From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2012-06-23 09:03
The CC was, in days long gone, a fine ship. Now with all the changes made to the game it just does not fit its name. It HAS to stay out of sight so its not jumped and killed with mimimum damage to enemy and SOOOOO many ppl forget or never learned how to use cameras to effective use fighters, But with the new changes to UGTO's lasers, even fighters will become only a nusiance rather than a threat. Yes a Commander sits at the edge of a battle and directs as the fight progresses but as stated earlier by others, ICC is no longer the "ranged" or "defensive" faction it used to be. I understand the issues of CPU usage and causing instability in game play, but when ICC was able to toss missles (ITs and PCMs) and fighters the faction was indeed ranged, Now a couple hundred Gus is the only difference in wep range which eliminated the ranged issue. with the changes made to shields we repair faster yes,but arent the stand there and punch it out with either of the other 2 factions for more than a few mins then retreat rep and go again. So ,as with the Guppy,there just isnt any situation where its justifiable to pull out a CC except in backwater faction controlled systems to "touch up" those few planets that went rogue or need upgrading, and really, how many players you know do that?
_________________
|
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
| Posted: 2012-06-23 09:15
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-22 12:19, Sardaukar wrote:
But I like having something I can use to Guppybomb, capture, and then rebuild with.
Okay, okay.
|
|
Just because you want it, that means that 10-20 other people's opinions are invalid?
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-23 07:27, Enterprise wrote:
Just because something may be a faction's specialty, doesn't mean the entire faction must revolve around it.
IIRC, fighters were meant to be more powerful than they are now (deployed as commandable wings, etc.) that weren't full on retard. Even now without that fact, fighters are still very damn effective. At least, against non-luth.
This entire thread is probably just because of the UGTO Command Dread.
I don't personally think the ICC CC needs to be changed. I think this monster needs to be changed.
If you're going to turn an Assault-class command ship to have enough direct firepower to make a Battle Dreadnaught blush, something is seriously amiss.
I would argue to replace the UGTO Command Dreadnaught's armament with fighters as well. There is just cause for any ship to have any kind of real firepower like that.
-Ent
|
|
Personally, I think that the UGTO CD is actually balanced. It has enough firepower to stop a mandi/damage a CD but can't resist a AD or properly flown K'luth ships.
_________________
http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7
|
NoBoDx
Grand Admiral
Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 784
From: Germany / NRW
| Posted: 2012-06-23 09:30
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-23 09:15, Persistance wrote:
Personally, I think that the UGTO CD is actually balanced. It has enough firepower to stop a mandi/damage a CD but can't resist a AD or properly flown K'luth ships.
|
|
wait, its ok to have a commandship ( whos purpose isnt focused around combat) to stop a assault-dread alone ?
_________________
The only good 'ooman is a dead 'ooman. An' da only fing better than a dead 'ooman'z a dyin' 'ooman who tell you where ter find 'is mates.
|
Sardaukar
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 1656
| Posted: 2012-06-23 09:35
1.) Take it easy, Per, there be sarcasm in those hills. No, I don't care about making sarcasm clear to everyone. And yes, since you're curious, in many cases it does invalidate the opinions of others.
2.) All this talk of faction specialty is a bad thing. Faction themes are a bad thing, at least as generalized as "defensive" and "energy effective." These didn't really ring true a decade ago, and they really don't now. The traits and, oh, focuses of a given faction are much more complex now than single words. I could make the case now that the ICC are the de-facto kings of offense-as-a-strategy, while being defensive skirmishers at the ship level.
[ This Message was edited by: Sardaukar on 2012-06-23 10:07 ]
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2012-06-23 10:29
Quote:
| This entire thread is probably just because of the UGTO Command Dread. |
|
It isn't. As I outlined in the opening post, it is not capable of flying with the ships it will be supporting as launching fighters in the middle of a fight is begging for PD to disable them, and that is a problem. Both the UGTO and K'Luth Command vessels are able to enter combat with the ships they will be supporting.
Quote:
| the ICC Command ship is great |
|
Quote:
| 4. the ICC CC needs cannons plain and simple, should have enough cannons to drive off cruisers so maybe 4forward 4aft and 2-all arcs or give it 4-360 ion cannons |
|
Quote:
| The ICC CC as it is is nothing but a non gankable engineering ship but other than that it poses no threat to any ship. |
|
The first statement clashes with the latter two, and would push the ICC Command Carrier over its point limit unless you... strip (a few) fighters. In essence what you are proposing is that the ICC Command Carrier as it is is unacceptable and needs to be replaced/have its armaments replaced to be able to engage in closer ranges as well.
Which is exactly what I am asking as well, except I don't give directives of what it needs, just that a Carrier isn't what we need in a Command ship.
Quote:
| Yes a Commander sits at the edge of a battle and directs as the fight progresses |
|
Command Auras grant a bonus to ships within x gu. The current Command Carrier will not be able to effectively lend its bonus to ships in combat without making its armaments futile by launching them in a zone with PD.
Quote:
| 2.) All this talk of faction specialty is a bad thing. Faction themes are a bad thing, at least as generalized as "defensive" and "energy effective." These didn't really ring true a decade ago, and they really don't now. The traits and, oh, focuses of a given faction are much more complex now than single words. I could make the case now that the ICC are the de-facto kings of offense-as-a-strategy, while being defensive skirmishers at the ship level. |
|
How do you feel about the Command Carrier? Justification for the Command Carrier was that "ICC is long-ranged"; does that mean you support the petition to change the Command Carrier as you go against this stereotype?
_________________
|
Sardaukar
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 1656
| Posted: 2012-06-23 10:37
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-23 10:29, Bardiche wrote:
How do you feel about the Command Carrier? Justification for the Command Carrier was that "ICC is long-ranged"; does that mean you support the petition to change the Command Carrier as you go against this stereotype?
|
|
I felt entirely as I posted earlier. It was a ship with which I could Guppybomb, for those familiar with the method, and then rebuild and such in a combat zone. I'm fairly out of the loop about the direction Command ships are going, so I suppose this third-line position is obsolete now, but I enjoyed it still.
Ships can conform to faction themes (egh), they can go against them. I think "does this ship conform?" should be the last question we ask when designing them. They use the faction technology to do a job, and that's that. I suppose you could use the Command Carrier was a second-line fleet carrier, but the cruiser was probably a better choice. As a carrier of recon craft or bombers, though, it worked well.
[ This Message was edited by: Sardaukar on 2012-06-23 10:40 ]
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2012-06-23 10:44
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-23 10:37, Sardaukar wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-23 10:29, Bardiche wrote:
How do you feel about the Command Carrier? Justification for the Command Carrier was that "ICC is long-ranged"; does that mean you support the petition to change the Command Carrier as you go against this stereotype?
|
|
I felt entirely as I posted earlier. It was a ship with which I could Guppybomb, for those familiar with the method, and then rebuild and such in a combat zone. I'm fairly out of the loop about the direction Command ships are going, so I suppose this third-line position is obsolete now, but I enjoyed it still.
Ships can conform to faction themes (egh), they can go against them. I think "does this ship conform?" should be the last question we ask when designing them. They use the faction technology to do a job, and that's that. I suppose you could use the Command Carrier was a second-line fleet carrier, but the cruiser was probably a better choice. As a carrier of recon craft or bombers, though, it worked well.
[ This Message was edited by: Bardiche on 2012-06-23 10:44 ]
|
|
The thing with the Command Carrier is that it will feature a Command Aura that provides a bonus to all ships within its area of effect, precise area probably not final at the moment. Accordingly, a Carrier ship isn't meant to engage ships from up close, whereas Combat Dreadnoughts, Heavy Cruisers, Combat Destroyers... they're not particularly long-ranged but are likely to find themselves in a situation where the enemy is engaging them from close.
A Command Carrier would find itself out of place in such a battlefield as its fighters are most vulnerable when launched while an enemy ship is within PD range. When both other factions have general deployment Command ships, the ICC Command ship requires tender care and loving affection to be shielded from enemies, since it only has 4 beams in any direction to protect itself from horrendous Cthulhu-level dread.
Also, why would you post in a thread about Command ships if you're "out of the loop" on their direction when the entire point is that given their direction it's not viable to use a Carrier? D:
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
