On 2012-11-27 19:14, Talien wrote:

Brood can spam fighters from a distance then cloak.

On 2012-11-28 01:50, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
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.

On 2012-11-28 06:49, Verox wrote:
1.672 Release:

* Fighters are returned to your ship when initiating cloak.

On 2012-11-28 06:06, Whiterin wrote:
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.

On 2012-11-29 05:36, SpaceAdmiral wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-11-28 06:06, Whiterin wrote: 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.

I spoke of combat viability, not combat ability. For instance, a TC and EAD have similar layouts, but they serve different roles to the point where the TC can out perform the EAD in certain areas such as assassinating key targets and then getting away. However, your new layout can build like an engi, mine like an engi, fight like a Brood, fighter spam like an Aggy, repair like a supply ship, blanket ECM/ECCM like small sensor ships, and disable the enemy like a UGTO small ship with EMP cannons. Here, this ship is a clear replacement for an engi, any other carrier dread or cruiser, and any medium gunship. The ship has high combat ability and has combat viability that surpasses many other ships. All because "the rank requirements are vastly higher" amirite? Also, carriers do not particularly benefit from being faster and more agile as you shouldn't be close to the battle in the first place.

The problem with creating a super layout is that you replace many other ships in many ways, shapes, and forms. Stations were nerfed precisely because of this; they served as vanguards, rearguards, support, heavy fire support, tankers, and transports. Now stations serve clear roles: Missle Support + Repairs, Heavy Cores + Close range defense, or Fighters + Utility with a dash of fire support. They now don't replace any other ship, they provide different options to supplement a fleet. The only reason why we don't see huge fleet diversity with all roles being filled is simply because the player base is too small to the point where the roles of vanguard, repair support, and fire support are the most important.

Similarly, all carriers must be buffed, not just buffing one. This leads to the question of "How do we make each unique?" The layout you gave killed any other option of a carrier as it did literally everything but transport. The Agincourt cannot compete with the proposed layout unless it got 12+ fighters. The carrier cruisers could not compete unless they recieved border cruiser like ecm and firepower. So, the best option is to buff fighters themselves. This keeps each ships' individuality while solving their common problem of being underused and underpowered, making the fighters' point value actually matter. The Agincourt will still be super capacity long range carrier, the CD will be the battle carrier, the CC will be the long range utility carrier, the Carrier Cruisers will be the carriers that can use closer range launches, the Brood will be the fire support/utility carrier, etc, but now they will actually succeed in their roles. I'm not against changing layouts, but the layouts should never encroach on another ship's territory, as one will be more powerful than the other unless they are direct mirrors of each other.

On the discussion of the CC itself, it does the carrier role as well as any other carrier, but the problem is that the carrier role itself is not impactful due to how fighters operate as stated before. Thus, I do not think there is need to split the ship into two others as the dedicated Carrier will inevitably be a cut and paste ICC Agincourt. One posibility is to retire the Carrier role from the ICC Dread scene, and instead make the Command ship a Border Cruiser esque EWAR, shield heavy ship with longer range fire support. (One must be careful to not just replace the combat dread as the combat dread, unlike the heavy cruiser, does not carry and torpedoes and is solely cannon and core based) The other posibility is to buff figters.

On 2012-11-29 07:28, Whiterin wrote:
You act like I am asking to put an AD level of firepower on it... I'm not. I suggested light armament and MAYBE a repair drone. The UGTO Carrier Dread has a decent amount of firepower; I'm basically just suggesting the same be done with the CC. I don't see why you're having such an issue with that.

Yes, I understand that the Carrier Dread doesn't have build drones, but again, it's a lower rank/requirement ship. On top of this, ICC has one dread level carrier, which also is the only command type ship. UGTO on the other hand has 2 dread level carriers and an extremely powerful dread level command ship.

What I proposed wouldn't be able to perform with fighters as well as the Agincourt, and wouldn't be able to deal nearly as much damage as the Command dread, or maybe even the carrier dread. It would basically be the ICC equal of the carrier dread with a build drone... which I don't think is too much to ask considering the difference in ranks and requirements.

On 2012-11-29 08:18, SpaceAdmiral wrote:

Again, you are using rank to justify an increase in combat viability and the power to overpower other ships in their roles, something that should never be done.
What you proposed will have 2 less fighters than the Agincourt, but in exchange has much more firepower and utility.
It will have slightly less firepower than the Carrier Dread, but have more fighters and much more utility.
It will have less firepower than the Command Dread at closer range, but can actually win longer range fire fights vs it and also have much more fighters and utility.
It will be a better Brood in every way, shape, and form except for cloak.

I'm not against strengthening or even changing the layout of the CC or any other carrier type ship, but again, it should never encroach on the role of other ships. Right now the proposed layout is a battle carrier like the Carrier Dread with high fighter capacity like the Aggie topped off with ECM and engineering capabilities equivalent to the dedicated small ships.

Examples of strengthening the ship without changing the role:
-more lasers, help in a defense situation and pd but still won't be enough to encourage rambo carriers used as assault craft
-more shields/armor, helps in defense and tanking smaller threats
-strengthening all fighters helps the CC as it contains a large amount
-buffs to EWAR in general again help the CC as well as other ships
-more build drones and/or mining beams, but this may make the carrier more powerful than the dedicated small ships

Even then, this might change the balance of the carriers and buffs to the other carrier type ships may be necessary.

One more thing... are command ships supposed to have a command aura as of now? Because the ICC CC sure doesn't...

On 2012-11-29 14:04, Fatal Brutality *COM* wrote:
It still wouldn't be a viable option vs a sector command base. You get better defenses, some actual weapons, more cargo space and fighters in exchange for moving slowly and having a slower JD cool down. A no brainier really when it comes to what to choose. I Personally think it needs to be revamped as whiterin has said and give it some ion cannons or something to give it a way to defend itself. Instead of changing the whole game for one ship, why not just modify the ship? Less work in the short term and the staff and work on the more pressing matters. Just my thoughts on the matter.

On 2012-11-29 22:24, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
My opinion, given the current situation would be to remove the "carrier" portion from the CC and make it into a Command ship. Give ICC a dedicated carrier.

On 2012-11-30 03:30, SpaceAdmiral wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-11-29 22:24, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote: My opinion, given the current situation would be to remove the "carrier" portion from the CC and make it into a Command ship. Give ICC a dedicated carrier.

What do you think about a Border Cruiser esque layout?

Reduce utilities (mining beams and/or build drones), keep 2 fighters or none at all, refit with all shields, add cannons, and maybe an extra EWAR slot?

The only concern I have with this kind of layout is that the Combat/Battle Dread types do not follow small gunship conventions; they lack the torpedo armament that keeps the Border Cruiser unique from the Heavy Cruiser.


On the topic of fighters, until actual logic and interface overhauls can be made the only things we can buff are numerical stats, and some of these stats can abate the logic problems. Longer range for weapons, small damage buffs or RoF increases, and increased speed are the main things I think would help.

On 2012-11-29 22:24, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Or else, the only quick fix way to improve fighters right now without redesigning them is to:

Increase fighters speed: Raise them to perhaps 100 - 150 gu/s
Increase their weapon power: Each fighter's cannon/beam is equivalent to a Scout. So a wing of say... 6 fighters has the firepower a scout with 6 cannons.

On 2012-11-30 06:30, Whiterin wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-11-30 03:30, SpaceAdmiral wrote: What do you think about a Border Cruiser esque layout? Reduce utilities (mining beams and/or build drones), keep 2 fighters or none at all, refit with all shields, add cannons, and maybe an extra EWAR slot?

Is your goal to make the CC worse or something?
Also, I checked out a brood today, it's a monster compared to the CC, so I don't know what you keep compaling about when comparing them. Let the CC loose a few fighters, they are useless anyways... Even ECM/ECCM is virtually useless now. It can't defend itself as it is... why are you suggesting we strip what little it CAN do away and give it more shields... makes no sense...