+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: The Carrier Update (/showthread.php?tid=121752)
RE: The Carrier Update - MatthewK - 10-22-2014
At first, I'm completly agreeing on this, it would make carriers finally do their job.
My take on the teleporting thing is: the whole point of so called "teleporting" is just a workaround to counter the fact, that snub cannot be permanently docked to the carrier (it undocks when the carrier logs out ) Therefore, inRP interpretation of this command would be as if the snub was docked to the carrier from the beginning.
This way, the constraints draw themselves - carrier should be able to beam as much snubs as it have docking modules mounted. (and when it beams them, it's like they were already there). Then, long countdown starts BOTH for carrier and for snubs, preventing them from further beaming. For carrier - because it cannot hold any more snubs, and for fighter - because it was onboard carrier A, so it can't realisticaly be on carrier B five minutes later.
the only possible overuse would be if someone would for example use his fighter to fend off pirates near Manhattan, dock, and appear near carrier in Texas to defend from a raid. But it's a minor one for me. After all, how much is it different from, say, having similarily outfitted fighter assigned to the carrier duty?
Furthermore, I'd allow such commands not only for carriers, but for all ships that can mount docking modules. From my point of view, it would give an opportunity for snub fighters that'd be corporate IFF'ed - for example there is a bunch of traders, each having docking module, and one or two fighters on duty, hanging near their base. If some trader encounters a pirate - he beams/teleports a fighter to his bay, which inRP would mean, that the fighter was merely accompanying him from the beginning. And because the command starts a cooldown counter for both the "teleporter" and "teleportee" - the trader cannot spam fighters, and the fighter won't be able to be teleported to another trader half a sirius away within 5 minutes.
Sure, some can say it would unbalance things, both for carrier vs BS and for trader vs pirate. But hey, you will just have to assume, that when ship has a docking bay, it MAY have fighter support, and plan your engagement accordingly - that's how it should work. So, no BS would engage lone carrier, and no lone pirate would engage lone trader. BS with GB/cruiser escort vs Carrier plus POSSIBLY snubs - thats perfectly balanced. Two pirate snubs vs trader and snub - also balanced. Hence - more interaction, less time spent travelling. Win-Win for me.
Last suggeston - would it be possible to allow beaming based on IFF table, and not just ID? It would allow scenarios where LN carrier calls LPI/LSF snubs, and trader can call for freelance/BHG/house police snubs. Also, many quasi and unlaful factions would benefit, as they can't use carriers per se, but have access to some ships that can have docking modules equipped.
RE: The Carrier Update - Highland Laddie - 10-22-2014
Quote:Furthermore, I'd allow such commands not only for carriers, but for all ships that can mount docking modules.
While I agree this would be handy, it would place all the importance on the Docking Module, and make the Carrier just another ship. I think the OP proposal is what makes the Carrier specifically unique and special and should be kept as such.
Quote:Last suggeston - would it be possible to allow beaming based on IFF table, and not just ID? It would allow scenarios where LN carrier calls LPI/LSF snubs, and trader can call for freelance/BHG/house police snubs. Also, many quasi and unlaful factions would benefit, as they can't use carriers per se, but have access to some ships that can have docking modules equipped.
I'd see too much potential abuse for this to be allowed.
RE: The Carrier Update - Hannibal - 10-22-2014
Highland Laddie Wrote:I think the OP proposal is what makes the Carrier specifically unique and special and should be kept as such.
ooRP just another ship that is not more important than a fighter or bomber..InRP ..sure,we slapped a word on that ship and now 50% of player logged on the server can beam on that ship[or will be able to]
Balance?There's no such thing ,however someone did mate a better suggestion @MatthewK that would benefit other factions then the military ones that have already the perks of having a more diversified class of ships to choose from,such as cruisers,battlecruisers,battleships,carriers...
Balance?There's no such thing ,however someone did mate a better suggestion @MatthewK that would benefit other factions then the military ones that have already the perks of having a more diversified class of ships to choose from,such as cruisers,battlecruisers,battleships,carriers...
RE: The Carrier Update - MatthewK - 10-22-2014
And, may I point it out, battlecruisers, transports and the like have mostly 1 docking module, if any, while carriers have several (up to 6 if I recall correctly) - their "specialness" would be preserved, as they'd still carry superior firepower, even when we count that extra snub that BS could summon (some BS can also mount docking modules AFAIK.)
RE: The Carrier Update - Highland Laddie - 10-22-2014
Quote:...as they'd still carry superior firepower...
I think their firepower is getting changed, so that's not certain.
Plus....1 Transport with a Dock Module could instantly bring in X number of snubs to suddenly support it makes the necessity of a Carrier useless. Same with a BS carrying them. That's why I'd say don't give the "warping" ability to the Dock Modules, but to the Carriers themselves. That helps them better fulfill their role and keeps them unique with that ability.
For Transports & Battleships, Dock Modules could continue to operate as they currently do.
Quote:@MatthewK that would benefit other factions then the military ones that have already the perks of having a more diversified class of ships to choose from,such as cruisers,battlecruisers,battleships,carriers...
Because no non-military factions have diverse ship lines...except Zoners, Junkers, Pirates, IMG.... /sarcasm.
RE: The Carrier Update - SnakThree - 10-22-2014
Alley already told that there will be some sort of limit/cooldown for Docking Modules, so infinite number of ships will not be the case.
RE: The Carrier Update - Highland Laddie - 10-22-2014
(10-22-2014, 08:03 PM)Snak3 Wrote: Alley already told that there will be some sort of limit/cooldown for Docking Modules, so infinite number of ships will not be the case.
Well, if that's the case, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. I apparently missed that part. I'm hoping the Carrier would at least be able to "beam" more ships than your BS or Transport with a Dock Module.
RE: The Carrier Update - Knjaz - 10-23-2014
Carriers? Useless?
Well, first, they have best Fleet Fire Support role there is. Comes in handy, from time to time.
And they still have more cargo space/docking bays then usual ships of their class, which helps with docking module/jumpdrive combo's.
Outside of these 2, they're not that good, yes. But hey, Liberty Dread is a horrible fleet fire support ship too, same goes for Valor.
....give carriers more missile ammo, this will boost their fleet fire support.
Give them more slots/introduce heavy slots that allow GBs and freighters to dock on it.
And introduce Outcast/Corsair carrier-class ship (mentioned that in other thread, but meh). They can make most use out of it with their ZOI.
RE: The Carrier Update - An'shur - 10-23-2014
Give all caps more missile ammo. According to their size, I think they are big enough to get bigger space for storing ammo. I would make cruisers able to store 40 missiles (currently 30) and battleships able to store 60 missiles (currently 20, this makes battleship missiles useless. Also, refire rate of 0,05 is making the cruiser missile better)
RE: The Carrier Update - WesternPeregrine - 10-23-2014
(10-22-2014, 03:46 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote:Quote:Furthermore, I'd allow such commands not only for carriers, but for all ships that can mount docking modules.
While I agree this would be handy, it would place all the importance on the Docking Module, and make the Carrier just another ship. I think the OP proposal is what makes the Carrier specifically unique and special and should be kept as such.
Hopefully the op includes at least one of the Kusari capitals on their list, on not just the ships designated as carriers, otherwise we will have a new issue of house unbalancing because "oh, we lack a carrier".
But it seems Alley and others probably have this taken into account.