| Author |
CD vs CC |
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
|  Posted: 2012-11-24 21:08
A few reasons of why fighters aren't that effective:
-The travel time of fighters makes it so that long range launches do not contribute to the fight until the fighters have reached the enemy, however with the current speed of combat (No dread can linger long in combat once the enemy fleet decides to focus it) the enemy will likely cloak/die/jump out before the fighters actually contribute to the fight. As stated before, closer range launches (800 gu is a good range) help negate this problem but doesn't completely solve it.
-The time it takes to get max fighters out also compounds the previous reason/problem; if launching from long range there is very little chance that all 4-5 squadrons of fighters make it to the fight before the enemy dies/cloaks/jumps. Close range launches are still affected as once a target dies you have to relaunch all of your fighters again.
-The behavior of fighters once they start retreating. When fighters are not on the approach towards an enemy ship, they will not fire, with the exception of interceptors. The time it takes to travel away directly cuts into the dps of the fighters.
A few possible solutions that can help alleviate these problems:
-Shorter CD on fighter launch, allowing you to get those fighters out faster and allowing you to target a different enemy faster after the first target died/cloaked/jumped.
-Higher dps weapons, a raw combat stat boost. Not in favor of this as this might make fighters too powerful in long range attrition stand off scenarios where max squads actually reach the enemy and continue harassing them. Interceptors could benefit a bit from this though.
-Longer range on weapons, good because it buffs longer range launches by allowing them to contribute to the fight earlier while not buffing the power of fighters that have already reached the target as the leash behavior will be the same (turn around and start attacking the enemy again once 1000 gu away from target), directly giving an incentive to launch from longer ranges as the fighters get more time to put shots in before having to turn back to avoid PD.
-Faster speeds, allowing fighters launched from a longer range to reach the battle quicker. Works against a weapon range buff as the extra weapon range will be less effective with the fighters reaching the target sooner. Still buffs longer range launches.
-Having fighters still fire when moving away from the target after it starts retreating from PD distance, buffs fighters already in combat with more dps.
_________________
|
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
| Posted: 2012-11-25 02:51
I personally like my fighters on my Sector Command Base and think they are pretty effective If they have the time to work. But that is the sector command base and not the Command Carrier. 
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2012-11-25 19:03
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-25 02:51, Fatal Brutality *COM* wrote:
I personally like my fighters on my Sector Command Base and think they are pretty effective If they have the time to work. But that is the sector command base and not the Command Carrier.
|
|
Launching fighters from the safety of your platform-fielded planet is a true and proven strategy that has worked again and again, but it's indeed not a strategy the Command Carrier can employ due to noticeably lower durability.
I don't think there's any immediate plans to improve on the fighter logic, though feedback as SpaceAdmiral provided is immensely valuable and serves as a way to tell what the playerbase diagnoses as a problem beyond "it's broke, fix plz".
_________________
|
Whiterin
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 146
| Posted: 2012-11-25 21:02
I think what needs to be fixed is the ship itself. The fighters are indeed... in need of some kind of reworking, but so is this ship.
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2012-11-26 10:23
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-25 21:02, Whiterin wrote:
I think what needs to be fixed is the ship itself. The fighters are indeed... in need of some kind of reworking, but so is this ship.
|
|
I think the ship as a Carrier concept is a married couple, inseparable except when death does us part. Taking that in mind, how would you "fix" the ship itself?
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-11-26 11:29
IMO, carriers, from a ship perspective, are more or less fine in DS. Perhaps some of them will need a bit of tweaking in the weaps to make them more useful. But there's very little you can do to change their status.
The two main problems I see with carriers in DS is.
- Fighters just don't have enough function, punch, range, etc etc
- Playstyle. No one escorts or defend their carriers. Fleet tactics in DS is almost non-existent, or rudimentary at best. Everything centers around, heavy firepower up close, and in numbers.
The combination of the above two simply means that carriers will always be the weak sister of the fleet. In reality, and also in many sci-fi films and games (especially space sims), fighters are the scalpel of the fleet that complement the bludgeons and clubs that the capital ships are. That's what make carriers important assets anywhere else but in DS.
If you ask me, fighters in DS as a whole need a complete rethinking.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2012-11-26 11:57
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-26 11:29, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
IMO, carriers, from a ship perspective, are more or less fine in DS. Perhaps some of them will need a bit of tweaking in the weaps to make them more useful. But there's very little you can do to change their status.
The two main problems I see with carriers in DS is.
- Fighters just don't have enough function, punch, range, etc etc
- Playstyle. No one escorts or defend their carriers. Fleet tactics in DS is almost non-existent, or rudimentary at best. Everything centers around, heavy firepower up close, and in numbers.
The combination of the above two simply means that carriers will always be the weak sister of the fleet. In reality, and also in many sci-fi films and games (especially space sims), fighters are the scalpel of the fleet that complement the bludgeons and clubs that the capital ships are. That's what make carriers important assets anywhere else but in DS.
If you ask me, fighters in DS as a whole need a complete rethinking.
|
|
Apparently, its in the works so
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Whiterin
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 146
| Posted: 2012-11-27 10:49
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-26 10:23, Bardiche wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-25 21:02, Whiterin wrote:
I think what needs to be fixed is the ship itself. The fighters are indeed... in need of some kind of reworking, but so is this ship.
|
|
I think the ship as a Carrier concept is a married couple, inseparable except when death does us part. Taking that in mind, how would you "fix" the ship itself?
|
|
What would I fix? Considering the requirements for it, I would personally:
- Change at least two of the lasers to HCL
- Add either:
A. 2x Ion Cannon (Front and side arcs), 2x Heavy Cannon, 2x Normal cannon.
B. 4X Ion Cannon (1x Fore/Left, 1x fore/Right, 1X Aft left, 1x Aft right
- Maybe remove a mining beam or two and put on a repair drone.
- Make all fighters do system damage as well. The damage fighters do now is pretty much useless unless you get multiple carrier type ships hitting one target. Often times, defense recharge is greater then fighter damage. Doing system damage would actually give fighters a purpose.
Having a ship that can:
- Build.
- Have fighters that do system damage.
- Able to defend itself against smaller ships to SOME degree.
Might actually make it a ship people will use.
As it is now, in my CC, I can't protect myself against ANY ship, unless it's a frigate that sits within my beam range. I can't even kill AI transports with fighters, and would be hard pressed to do it with beams.
Just checked, and as far as armament goes, the escort carrier is better off then the CC, considering the requiremnts needed for CC... that's quite the joke.
Considering the fact that they are reworking the look of the CC to a very nice looking ship, it would be a shame for it to go to waste by having it be so bad no one plays it.
_________________
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2012-11-27 18:27
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-27 10:49, Whiterin wrote:
What would I fix? Considering the requirements for it, I would personally:
- Change at least two of the lasers to HCL
- Add either:
A. 2x Ion Cannon (Front and side arcs), 2x Heavy Cannon, 2x Normal cannon.
B. 4X Ion Cannon (1x Fore/Left, 1x fore/Right, 1X Aft left, 1x Aft right
- Maybe remove a mining beam or two and put on a repair drone.
- Make all fighters do system damage as well. The damage fighters do now is pretty much useless unless you get multiple carrier type ships hitting one target. Often times, defense recharge is greater then fighter damage. Doing system damage would actually give fighters a purpose.
Having a ship that can:
- Build.
- Have fighters that do system damage.
- Able to defend itself against smaller ships to SOME degree.
Might actually make it a ship people will use.
As it is now, in my CC, I can't protect myself against ANY ship, unless it's a frigate that sits within my beam range. I can't even kill AI transports with fighters, and would be hard pressed to do it with beams.
Just checked, and as far as armament goes, the escort carrier is better off then the CC, considering the requiremnts needed for CC... that's quite the joke.
Considering the fact that they are reworking the look of the CC to a very nice looking ship, it would be a shame for it to go to waste by having it be so bad no one plays it.
|
|
The only problem is that you now have to balance this ship with other carrier type ships, but this ship can fight, build, disable, and mine in addition to holding 6 fighters.
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-11-27 19:14
It's not just a Carrier, it's a command ship.
UGTO CD is about on par with the BD, if not a bit higher, as far as damage output goes. The mines provide decent protection to being hit from behind by luth.
Brood can spam fighters from a distance then cloak. Not that it's extremely effective as a combat ship, but it at least has more options than "launch fighters until attacked, then jump out."
CC is a giant target, it really has no redeeming qualities over other ships aside from being more durable than an Engineer.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-11-28 01:50
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-27 19:14, Talien wrote:
It's not just a Carrier, it's a command ship.
|
|
This may be the key issue. It is both and doesn't do either particularly well.
In order to do both well, it'll need more points on its hull to stow all the gadgets in. And that may be more than what a Dread1 or Dread2 hull can offer. Besides, if the CC can fight as well as a UGTO Command Dread and contain enough fighters to rival the Aggie, then it'd (in my book) be OP in some ways.
Besides redesigning or improving fighters, I think the the ICC Command Carrier should be decommissioned entirely and split into 2 separate ships. A command ship, and a dedicated carrier.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Whiterin
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 146
| Posted: 2012-11-28 02:15
[/quote]
The only problem is that you now have to balance this ship with other carrier type ships, but this ship can fight, build, disable, and mine in addition to holding 6 fighters.
[/quote]
Why would it need to be balanced against other carriers? It has much higher requirements then any other carrier ship. I think, I'm not 100% sure though, that it even has more requirements then the UGTO CD... yet it's not even as good combat-wise as the escort carrier. It should be balanced against other Admiral rank ships, not lesser ranked ships.
As for it being split into multiple ships, I'm not sure that would really be necessary. If it were changed, the build I posted for example, it still wouldn't do either job GREAT, but the combonation would, hopefully at least, make it viable for use.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-11-28 03:23
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-28 02:15, Whiterin wrote:
Why would it need to be balanced against other carriers? It has much higher requirements then any other carrier ship. I think, I'm not 100% sure though, that it even has more requirements then the UGTO CD... yet it's not even as good combat-wise as the escort carrier. It should be balanced against other Admiral rank ships, not lesser ranked ships.
As for it being split into multiple ships, I'm not sure that would really be necessary. If it were changed, the build I posted for example, it still wouldn't do either job GREAT, but the combonation would, hopefully at least, make it viable for use.
|
|
It would be far far easier to reduce the requirements than to reconfigure and balance a ship to be multifunction and not OP at the same time.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2012-11-28 03:35
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-28 02:15, Whiterin wrote:
Why would it need to be balanced against other carriers? It has much higher requirements then any other carrier ship. I think, I'm not 100% sure though, that it even has more requirements then the UGTO CD... yet it's not even as good combat-wise as the escort carrier. It should be balanced against other Admiral rank ships, not lesser ranked ships.
|
|
You're supposed to earn more options as you rank up, not replacements. Otherwise we would see no one using dreads and people only using stations.
_________________
|
Whiterin
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 146
| Posted: 2012-11-28 06:06
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-28 03:35, SpaceAdmiral wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-11-28 02:15, Whiterin wrote:
Why would it need to be balanced against other carriers? It has much higher requirements then any other carrier ship. I think, I'm not 100% sure though, that it even has more requirements then the UGTO CD... yet it's not even as good combat-wise as the escort carrier. It should be balanced against other Admiral rank ships, not lesser ranked ships.
|
|
You're supposed to earn more options as you rank up, not replacements. Otherwise we would see no one using dreads and people only using stations.
|
|
Yeah... because dreads and crusiers are completely even in battle ability and earning badges and pres is pointless since every ship has the same combat abilities. Okay.
The point is, you don't try to balance an AD/EAD with a cruiser. They are different class ships, in a different rank. Yes, improved speed and manuvering can make up for it, but they aren't balanced as far as firepower goes. The same could be said here, the smaller carriers are faster and more agile... so your comment doesn't really have merit. It's not right for a higher ship to have far lesser combat ability.
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
