+- 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: Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. (/showthread.php?tid=26199)
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - Bass_masta992 - 09-08-2009
I can see why you get tired of this, there's a lot of repetition.
If it's not a carrier, lets not call it a carrier, agreed?
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - shadowjman - 09-08-2009
' Wrote:It wont improve anything, the only thing making the proposed changes will do is stop people from flying the ships at all.
We've got enough ship classes in the mod that nobody wants to fly because people screwed them up in this whole balancing spree, dont ruin another.
once more, cant launch fighters, cant launch bombers, cannot always have 10 other players flying around in tow just to help you out. You're being unreasonable, and you know it.
No, this mod is based on -freelancer-, which didnt even have carriers in the first place. Go back and play the campaign, fighters and bombers (not that there really were any, tbh) were carried by battleships, not dedicated carriers.
You want this game to be more "real life", well it isnt, face the facts. This mod, this server, is based on an inaccurate sci-fi game, and what we need to keep 'true' to is that game's design concept.
i am being unreasonable? coming from the one who has fought this from the start? by using responses that have already been stated on every other one of these threads. this is showing that there can be a change made to make the role of a capital ship more interesting and intricate and less of a powerhouse that lulwutts buy, because its "huge and has moar gunz". so tell me, is arguing change really that unreasonable?
it wasn't for the launching. no one but you has brought up the carriers launching fighters in this thread. we all know that they can there is no point in stating it. the link was to show you that they cannot do ship to ship combat by themselves.
i never said i wanted it to be like real life, the carrier that is here is a glorified battleship. which is boring and useless. and to be honest this game is completely different from the original Freelancer. and can in no way be compared to the SP anymore. vanilla is almost completely wiped out, and at the launch of 4.86 (whenever that may be) the original freelancer that you see in the SP will be pretty much gone aside from the games basic mechanics.
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - shadowjman - 09-08-2009
' Wrote:I can see why you get tired of this, there's a lot of repetition.
If it's not a carrier, lets not call it a carrier, agreed?
it isn't a carrier. at least in game, on paper and on the forums. it may be, but to truly call it one. it has to show some characteristics of being one in game. and if nothing is going to be done to change it. then i have to agree with bass. change the name.
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - Cris - 09-08-2009
//didnt read the whole mess
Why not deleting the carriers completely?
*jumps into flame-suit*
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - shadowjman - 09-08-2009
' Wrote://didnt read the whole mess
Why not deleting the carriers completely?
*jumps into flame-suit*
that sure would piss off the people who bought em.
better be fully refundable hehe
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - Tenacity - 09-08-2009
' Wrote:that sure would piss off the people who bought em.
better be fully refundable hehe
yea, delete my ship without a refund and I will hunt you down and rip your throat out.
Regardless, the ships are designed like carriers should be as far as model shape and aesthetics, that's the problem with just renaming them. Why is it my "Order heavy battlecruiser" looks like it has four launch tubes on the front? Because it does.
Or, instead of pointlessly arguing about a name, we could just drop it and stop bringing up this stupid topic over and over again.
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - shadowjman - 09-08-2009
' Wrote:yea, delete my ship without a refund and I will hunt you down and rip your throat out.
Regardless, the ships are designed like carriers should be as far as model shape and aesthetics, that's the problem with just renaming them. Why is it my "Order heavy battlecruiser" looks like it has four launch tubes on the front? Because it does.
Or, instead of pointlessly arguing about a name, we could just drop it and stop bringing up this stupid topic over and over again.
if the people really want that power level of ship in the game. then i think a dev team would have to be formed for the sole purpose of remaking them into less carrier looking ships. the OLC doesnt need to much of a change, it doesn't scream carrier in the first place. the Aquilon(Sp?) is in the same boat as the OLC. the liberty one however, needed an over haul in the first place.
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - Eppy - 09-08-2009
Here's the role I envision for Carriers. We have an unused gun class, right, 6? Well. How's about we turn the Carrier into a Fighter Support Vessel? Two Battleship turrets, four Gunboat turrets, and however many Class Six turrets, which will mount high-speed, medium-range, high-refire weapons - basically an optimized Solaris - and improved Flak. It can mount a pair of whatever Battleship guns it feels like - probably missiles for taking Gunboats, I'd say, Gunboat turrets for the anti-fighter missiles, and the rest for anti-fighter in general. So, in essence, we've optimized the Carrier for righter support - it now can't hope to take on anything bigger than a lone cruiser, but anything smaller than that had better learn to riverdance really, really fast. Keep it classed as a Battleship with the exorbitant Battleship prices and we'll have ourselves a new purpose as a fine support vessel for the current pseudo-Battleships.
Of course, this is all conjecture, and I'm sure somebody will come along in five minutes and tell me how wrong I am, but let's say that this is the direction of thought I think people ought to take in this matter. Think up new things! Instead of worrying about being dockable or spawning fighters, think of how we can repurpose them to help assist smaller ships in a larger tactical situation.
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - Tenacity - 09-08-2009
' Wrote:if the people really want that power level of ship in the game. then i think a dev team would have to be formed for the sole purpose of remaking them into less carrier looking ships. the OLC doesnt need to much of a change, it doesn't scream carrier in the first place. the Aquilon(Sp?) is in the same boat as the OLC. the liberty one however, needed an over haul in the first place.
No, it isnt.
The Liberty carrier is liberty's answer to the rheinland battleship. Compare them, they're balanced against one another.
Liberty wouldnt be able to fight a straight war with rheinland if all they had was their dread, because it's horrible compared to the Rheinland BS. Just like the difference between the aquilon and the juggernaut, or the Bretonia battleship and the kusari battleship.
It's no different than cruisers - we have light cruisers/destroyers like the kusari destroyer, order recon cruiser, and bhg destroyer... and we have heavy cruisers like the rheinland cruiser and praefect.
Carriers fullfilling the wrong role. - Bass_masta992 - 09-08-2009
You said it was a good idea earlier...
Anyway, it's water under the bridge I suppose. Realism is not Roleplayism (Yes that's a word) and despite Carriers not literally filling out their roles as Carriers in real life (Or in game for that matter) doesn't stop the roleplay from being possible. As for the launch tubes on the carrier, The Isis docks ships, why can't the Heavy Battlecruiser? /Hypocrisy