+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? (/showthread.php?tid=137644)
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Titan* - 04-03-2016
(04-03-2016, 11:01 AM)Hannibal Wrote: a skilled light battleship can kill a heavy battleship
if hevy bs captain dont konw what to do then yes
skilled light bs csn rek a newb hevy bs but
skiled hvy bs can kill skilled light bs
armour always matters in cap combat
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Dr Hooligan - 04-03-2016
Skill plus agility matters more than skill plus armour.. Any day..
Tell ya what, get your best armoured cruiser and I'll get a Kusari destroyer.. Let's see who wins, ok..
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Titan* - 04-04-2016
(04-03-2016, 11:32 PM)Dr Hooligan Wrote: Skill plus agility matters more than skill plus armour.. Any day..
Tell ya what, get your best armoured cruiser and I'll get a Kusari destroyer.. Let's see who wins, ok..
cruiser vs cruiser is different case
you probably die to rheinland cruiser or scylla or bret destroyer anyway if you want to test it try to find a guy named rnc wallenstein in the game he will show you
i cant log for 6 months tho cos no internet in new house
it is rely different in battleships
it is so easy to hit light caps with mortars or prims in a hvy battleship
especially in valor and jormungand cos op forwrd guns
armour and skill matters in capital ships not in cruiser and gunboats but sometimrs it does
also lets get back to the topic
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Dr Hooligan - 05-07-2016
There is a player who calls himself "Vicious" on another server. Go find him and take your biggest, baddest battleship against him and see how long you last. He will wipe the floor with you in a much smaller and more maneuverable battleship. Guaranteed. I know so, because I used to fly with him and know what he is capable of doing. The guy is one of the best pilots this game has ever seen. Though he does have an attitude problem. But still, he is very skilled. So go for it. Hunt him down and test your biggest and baddest.. Enjoy your death notices;;
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Slayadok - 05-07-2016
Vicious was a freaking beast in just about any class of ship if it is the guy from ptc....
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Thunderer - 05-07-2016
I don't see how this relates to the topic, but thanks for letting me know. I'd be honoured to try to wrestle his title out of his grasp, in case you know any way I can contact him. I don't think killing a heavy BS using a light BS is hard anyways, except if you are facing a skilled Valor. Forward guns have a bug. Titan isn't wrong though, in some conditions killing a light BS using a heavy one is easy too. I think battleships are pretty well balanced (if we exclude bugs), but carriers aren't.
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Cheetah - 05-09-2016
Even if we assume the docking modules as something that will never work because of lazy staff, then Carriers might be given a second life if we rework the current Jumpdrive limitations and "price" (in terms of construction cost/power/fuel usage). So, why the Jumpers were so heavily nerfed? Because everyone was powertrading, loading a fleet of 5kers and then jumping directly to sellpoint, thus leading to easy superprofits and killing piracy in process. In answer, we got and ugly fix which castrated the Jumpdrives to 4 systems and 3600 cargo.
Instead of it, the JD rebalance could be done in a much better way. Every ship gets a "hyperspace weight" (or real weight, also leading to cruisers not being flipped by NPC fighters) depending on class, armor points and maybe gun count. Each commodity also gets a hyperspace weight parameter. Each Jumpdrive also gets a maximum distance + maximum transportable weight limit. Then, when inputting coordinates, jump plugin looks for how far the jump point is (in number of systems), then counts total transported mass of ship plus cargo (for JD4 — all ships plus cargoes in range), and outputs the fuel mass required to jump. If calculated weight goes over the maximum weight limit, then jump range gets drastically reduced. In result, if you want to move a lone destroyer with JD2 across 5 systems — it's cheap, and internal cargo hold might be enough for fuel requirement. If you want to move it across 7 systems — fuel requirement is 50% more. A battleship is out of mass limit for JD2, and requires JD3. If you want to move a Carrier with pack of fighters/bombers across 5-6 systems — okay, bring a 3.5ker of fuel for this. Want to move a fleet of 5kers? No problem, just be sure to bring, say, 50 000 units of fuel.
In question of this thread, the Carriers in this weighted system will have an advantage over Battleship by having considerably less jump weight and thus either allowing to bring more ships, jump farther or use less fuel (thus simplifying logistics). By the way, the above-explained rebalance perfectly fits the roleplay environment, unlike most balance-team decisions.
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Hannibal - 05-09-2016
(05-09-2016, 01:14 PM)Cheetah Wrote: Even if we assume the docking modules as something that will never work because of lazy staff, then Carriers might be given a second life if we rework the current Jumpdrive limitations and "price" (in terms of construction cost/power/fuel usage). So, why the Jumpers were so heavily nerfed? Because everyone was powertrading, loading a fleet of 5kers and then jumping directly to sellpoint, thus leading to easy superprofits and killing piracy in process. In answer, we got and ugly fix which castrated the Jumpdrives to 4 systems and 3600 cargo.
Instead of it, the JD rebalance could be done in a much better way. Every ship gets a "hyperspace weight" (or real weight, also leading to cruisers not being flipped by NPC fighters) depending on class, armor points and maybe gun count. Each commodity also gets a hyperspace weight parameter. Each Jumpdrive also gets a maximum distance + maximum transportable weight limit. Then, when inputting coordinates, jump plugin looks for how far the jump point is (in number of systems), then counts total transported mass of ship plus cargo (for JD4 — all ships plus cargoes in range), and outputs the fuel mass required to jump. If calculated weight goes over the maximum weight limit, then jump range gets drastically reduced. In result, if you want to move a lone destroyer with JD2 across 5 systems — it's cheap, and internal cargo hold might be enough for fuel requirement. If you want to move it across 7 systems — fuel requirement is 50% more. A battleship is out of mass limit for JD2, and requires JD3. If you want to move a Carrier with pack of fighters/bombers across 5-6 systems — okay, bring a 3.5ker of fuel for this. Want to move a fleet of 5kers? No problem, just be sure to bring, say, 50 000 units of fuel.
In question of this thread, the Carriers in this weighted system will have an advantage over Battleship by having considerably less jump weight and thus either allowing to bring more ships, jump farther or use less fuel (thus simplifying logistics). By the way, the above-explained rebalance perfectly fits the roleplay environment, unlike most balance-team decisions.
or..
1.just remove fuel usage for jd1-3
2.make it uses cloak ammo like..300 or 500 per jump
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - sasapinjic - 05-09-2016
(05-09-2016, 01:46 PM)Hannibal Wrote:Good and already proposed idea , still waiting for implementation !(05-09-2016, 01:14 PM)Cheetah Wrote: Even if we assume the docking modules as something that will never work because of lazy staff, then Carriers might be given a second life if we rework the current Jumpdrive limitations and "price" (in terms of construction cost/power/fuel usage). So, why the Jumpers were so heavily nerfed? Because everyone was powertrading, loading a fleet of 5kers and then jumping directly to sellpoint, thus leading to easy superprofits and killing piracy in process. In answer, we got and ugly fix which castrated the Jumpdrives to 4 systems and 3600 cargo.
Instead of it, the JD rebalance could be done in a much better way. Every ship gets a "hyperspace weight" (or real weight, also leading to cruisers not being flipped by NPC fighters) depending on class, armor points and maybe gun count. Each commodity also gets a hyperspace weight parameter. Each Jumpdrive also gets a maximum distance + maximum transportable weight limit. Then, when inputting coordinates, jump plugin looks for how far the jump point is (in number of systems), then counts total transported mass of ship plus cargo (for JD4 — all ships plus cargoes in range), and outputs the fuel mass required to jump. If calculated weight goes over the maximum weight limit, then jump range gets drastically reduced. In result, if you want to move a lone destroyer with JD2 across 5 systems — it's cheap, and internal cargo hold might be enough for fuel requirement. If you want to move it across 7 systems — fuel requirement is 50% more. A battleship is out of mass limit for JD2, and requires JD3. If you want to move a Carrier with pack of fighters/bombers across 5-6 systems — okay, bring a 3.5ker of fuel for this. Want to move a fleet of 5kers? No problem, just be sure to bring, say, 50 000 units of fuel.
In question of this thread, the Carriers in this weighted system will have an advantage over Battleship by having considerably less jump weight and thus either allowing to bring more ships, jump farther or use less fuel (thus simplifying logistics). By the way, the above-explained rebalance perfectly fits the roleplay environment, unlike most balance-team decisions.
or..
1.just remove fuel usage for jd1-3
2.make it uses cloak ammo like..300 or 500 per jump
RE: Why do we need carriers in Discovery? - Epo - 05-09-2016
Then also make batteries more expensive. Would be perfect if bs/cruiser cloak is separated from snub one. Like snub one using the cheapest bats and bs one the most expensive ones.