| Author |
[1.7] Beta Feedback |
-xTc- ExisT
Chief Marshal
Army Of Darkness
Joined: March 20, 2010
Posts: 534
From: Red Lobster
|  Posted: 2013-09-17 22:30
Quote:
On 2013-09-17 07:26, iwancoppa wrote:
In totally unrelated news: Scarab is brutal.
|
<3
_________________
*Connection lost, attempting reconnect in 30 seconds....
Do you really want to just pay bills until you die?
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2013-09-17 22:54
Quote:
On 2013-09-17 22:27, iwancoppa wrote:
As another suggestion for the fleet carrier,
Seeing as we are so reliant on the points system for ~balans~
It would make logical sense to drop the pulse shield. Think about it. Not only do fighters generally stay out of pulse shield range, but there would also be the risk of activating it and accidentally destroying friendly fighters or (insert lore here)
TLDR; remove pulse shield and add more darn fighters
|
Pulse Shield doesn't kill friendly missiles/fighters anymore, it was converted into a roll based gadget with a 60% chance to destroy each enemy missile/fighter in range. Arguably that's even worse.
Dropping the Pulse Shield and adding something that's actually useful, like a couple more PD beams or another EW gadget is a valid suggestion. But Fighter Bays cost more points so that one wouldn't work.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2013-09-18 00:17
Quote:
On 2013-09-17 22:27, iwancoppa wrote:
It would make logical sense to drop the pulse shield. Think about it. Not only do fighters generally stay out of pulse shield range, but there would also be the risk of activating it and accidentally destroying friendly fighters or (insert lore here)
TLDR; remove pulse shield and add more darn fighters
|
You are mistaken if you think fighters don't get into pulse shield range...
_________________
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2013-09-18 01:17
So what I'm getting is that the ICC [Missile Faction] Carrier loses to the UGTO [Carrier Faction] Carrier in a one on one, so the ICC Carrier needs to be buffed until they are even and just two fighters short of the Agincourt supercarrier? I mean it is already quite the slap in the face that the ICC get the Cannon/Fighter (plus E-War too!) combo that was iconic to the UGTO until this build... (Yes, I do know we have a Missile/Carrier to compensate but the Cannon/Carrier just holds a lot of sentimental value [the old love/hate relationship that gets rosy over time] as the first dread many a UGTO player piloted)
_________________
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-09-18 02:37
Spaceadmiral,
I don't want equality. I just don't want a double-whammy of badness.
Oh, not to mention an ICC missile dred vs a UGTO missile dred, simultaneous explosions..
After smashing my head against the metaphorical brick wall of Walrus for a while, came to a sensible conclusions.
The FC doesn't 'work' because it doesn't fit in to the ICC carrier philosophy.
In general, carrier craft are split in to two streams. There are the PDboats(escort cruiser) and the Sneakyboats(Carrier Cruiser/strike carrier).
Basically, if we took an armor plate/pulse wave/whatever off the FC to free up points to put in to ewar/PD, it would actually have a reason to be used - right now it has no unique advantage/feature or anything that compensates for low numbers of bad fighters.
My suggestion would be an extra Ewar gadget instead of the pulse shield. This helps put the FC in to the 'sneaky' bracket without getting towards a tier2 Carrier + Ewar. A tier 1.5, if you'll have it.
[ This Message was edited by: iwancoppa on 2013-09-18 03:25 ]
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2013-09-18 03:54
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 02:37, iwancoppa wrote:
Spaceadmiral,
I don't want equality. I just don't want a double-whammy of badness.
Oh, not to mention an ICC missile dred vs a UGTO missile dred, simultaneous explosions..
After smashing my head against the metaphorical brick wall of Walrus for a while, came to a sensible conclusions.
The FC doesn't 'work' because it doesn't fit in to the ICC carrier philosophy.
In general, carrier craft are split in to two streams. There are the PDboats(escort cruiser) and the Sneakyboats(Carrier Cruiser/strike carrier).
Basically, if we took an armor plate/pulse wave/whatever off the FC to free up points to put in to ewar/PD, it would actually have a reason to be used - right now it has no unique advantage/feature or anything that compensates for low numbers of bad fighters.
My suggestion would be an extra Ewar gadget instead of the pulse shield. This helps put the FC in to the 'sneaky' bracket without getting towards a tier2 Carrier + Ewar. A tier 1.5, if you'll have it.
|
This will depend on there are enough points left on the hull to put on this desired eWar device you want. If there isn't, then something will have to be taken off the ship.
Some devices cost more than others. And taking a particular device off a ship may not mean you have enough points to put that replacement device in.
But most importantly... heh... Jim and Wally has to agree to whatever it is that you're proposing.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2013-09-18 04:13 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-09-18 04:34
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 03:54, Kenny_Naboo wrote:
But most importantly... heh... Jim and Wally has to agree to whatever it is that you're proposing.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2013-09-18 04:13 ]
|
May as well give up, Wally is intent on the FC being horrible.
Suggestion: two EWAR fighters out per slot.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2013-09-18 04:44
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 04:34, iwancoppa wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 03:54, Kenny_Naboo wrote:
But most importantly... heh... Jim and Wally has to agree to whatever it is that you're proposing.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2013-09-18 04:13 ]
|
May as well give up, Wally is intent on the FC being horrible.
Suggestion: two EWAR fighters out per slot.
|
Somehow I doubt that.
Both Jim and Wally are primarily ICC players.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-09-18 04:52
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 04:44, Kenny_Naboo wrote:
Somehow I doubt that.
Both Jim and Wally are primarily ICC players.
|
Wally is scared of *breaking* his sacred rules
He's literally more scared of changing the FC then sprinting through a field of angry bees with HIV infected needles spread around.
_________________
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2013-09-18 04:53
What you're asking for is a T2 Carrier/EWar
I really really really doubt that any of the layouts are going to be changed.
He said it's gonna be left as it is.
What I would like to suggest is that the ICC fighters have some traits that make up for their badness.
I don't want them to be "better" than UGTO, I just want for them to be different in a meaningful way.
I'm thinking of the 3 way T1 carrier balance being a bit like so:
(It's like this to an extent already, and stuff I think that would make ICC carriers have a useful niche without being way out of line is in bold)
---------
K'Luth:
Worst carrier hull - Fragile, lousy PD, less armor, less EW.
Most powerful fighters - Highest firepower and more fighter bays.
No EW shuttles.
---------
UGTO:
Tough and adaptable carrier hull. Good long range PD, normal EW.
Good fighters - Average firepower and average fighter bays.
Average EWar shuttles available.
Long range Interceptors (Enough to give a first strike advantage)
---------
ICC:
Somewhat adaptable carrier hull. Excellent short range PD, normal EW.
Poor fighters - Low firepower, and average fighter bays.
Excellent EWar shuttles - More devices equipped on each one.
Rapid fire short range Interceptors (Enough to better keep up with missiles)
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2013-09-18 04:53 ]
_________________
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-09-18 05:28
To steal from fluttershy,
---------
ICC:
Somewhat adaptable carrier hull. Excellent short range PD, normal EW.
Poor fighters - Low firepower, and average fighter bays.
Excellent EWar shuttles - two launches per bay
Faster Fighters
[ This Message was edited by: iwancoppa on 2013-09-18 07:18 ]
_________________
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-09-18 06:32
Once more, I reinterate that just because the ICC has the lowest number of fighters is not a reason to change the layout IMO. The UGTO have the most fighters on their ships and that is by design. I really don't see the problem with a fleet carrier losing to another carrier. Also, I am against the removal of the pulse shield for any ICC ship since that would be the equivalent of asking us the k'luth to sacrifice their cloak on a ship.
Also, do you even know how the pulse shield works? It does not destroy friendly fighters or missiles, and it's range scales with the ship it is on. The dread pulse shield has a larger range than the destroyer pulse shield for instance and fighters DO get into pulse shield range, you must time it correctly to use the pulse shield efficiently.
-Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-09-18 06:35
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 04:53, Fluttershy wrote:
What you're asking for is a T2 Carrier/EWar---------
UGTO:
Tough and adaptable carrier hull. Good long range PD, normal EW.
Good fighters - Average firepower and average fighter bays.
Average EWar shuttles available.
Long range Interceptors (Enough to give a first strike advantage)
---------
ICC:
Somewhat adaptable carrier hull. Excellent short range PD, normal EW.
Poor fighters - Low firepower, and average fighter bays.
Excellent EWar shuttles - More devices equipped on each one.
Rapid fire short range Interceptors (Enough to better keep up with missiles)
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2013-09-18 04:53 ]
|
I also wish to point out that interceptor fighters are being relegated to a purely defensive role in 1.7. They are no longer used to attack ships but to defend against other fighters and missiles so they are useless in a "first strike" capacity.
-Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-09-18 06:58
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 06:32, Sheraton *XO* wrote:
Once more, I reinterate that just because the ICC has the lowest number of fighters is not a reason to change the layout IMO. The UGTO have the most fighters on their ships and that is by design. I really don't see the problem with a fleet carrier losing to another carrier. Also, I am against the removal of the pulse shield for any ICC ship since that would be the equivalent of asking us the k'luth to sacrifice their cloak on a ship.
Also, do you even know how the pulse shield works? It does not destroy friendly fighters or missiles, and it's range scales with the ship it is on. The dread pulse shield has a larger range than the destroyer pulse shield for instance and fighters DO get into pulse shield range, you must time it correctly to use the pulse shield efficiently.
-Sheraton
|
so you're basically saying you're fine with ICC getting a gimped carrier and you're dead set on having a pretty mediocre special ability on every ship...
Yea right. Just because you don't care about fighters.
_________________
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-09-18 07:23
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 06:58, iwancoppa wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-09-18 06:32, Sheraton *XO* wrote:
Once more, I reinterate that just because the ICC has the lowest number of fighters is not a reason to change the layout IMO. The UGTO have the most fighters on their ships and that is by design. I really don't see the problem with a fleet carrier losing to another carrier. Also, I am against the removal of the pulse shield for any ICC ship since that would be the equivalent of asking us the k'luth to sacrifice their cloak on a ship.
Also, do you even know how the pulse shield works? It does not destroy friendly fighters or missiles, and it's range scales with the ship it is on. The dread pulse shield has a larger range than the destroyer pulse shield for instance and fighters DO get into pulse shield range, you must time it correctly to use the pulse shield efficiently.
-Sheraton
|
so you're basically saying you're fine with ICC getting a gimped carrier and you're dead set on having a pretty mediocre special ability on every ship...
Yea right. Just because you don't care about fighters.
|
I Hardly don't care. Every faction has mediocre ships. I am still not convinced the Fleet Carrier is a mediocre ship just because it cannot out damage another carrier with more fighters.
-Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
