Carriers fullfilling the wrong role.

[Bass_masta992]

The role of a carrier is to be a mobile base for fighters and craft, along with a proposed fleet to sail with. Carriers are not generally designed to be a massive defense fortress capable of fighting as a ship itself, because it's main purpose is to carry fighters/bombers in to battle. Some of you may see where I'm going with this.

I'll use Liberty and The Order as an example, as they are both in the same situation where I can give the right examples.

In "Real life" there are battleships, and there are carriers. Didn't know that? well look at this...

The USS Kitty Hawk is a Carrier. It can carry up to 80 different fighters and maintain all of them. It's Freaking huge. Here are its defense systems:

Armament:
The Kitty Hawk is armed two Mk 29 Sea Sparrow Guided Missile Launch Systems, two RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) systems, and two Mk 15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS (Close In Weapon System.)

Not much, eh? But you're carrying 80+ Vessels on your ship, each with enough guns to eat apart base after base.

The USS Iowa. Battleship. A floating fortress designed for heavy gun use. Accurate, powerful, destructive. Weapon armaments look like this:

1. MK28 5 INCH (54 CAL.)GUN MOUNTS (6): This twin barrelled 127mm gun is accurate against fast, surface targets, some air targets and shore bombardment threats. A left over from WWII it is one of the battleship's oldest weapons. Three of each of these turrents in mounted on each side. The others were removed to accomodate the Tomahawk missiles.

* PRIMARY PURPOSE: Anti-Ship/Surface targets
* SECONDARY PURPOSE: Anti-Aircraft
* RANGE: 14.9 miles Versus Surface targets / 5 miles Versus Airborne targets
* DAMAGE: 3D8 x 10 M.D. each barrel
* RATE OF FIRE: 10 rounds per melee
* PAYLOAD: 500 round magazine stored below.
* NOTE: Several other types of ammo can be selected: Chaff, illuminating, and practice rounds

2. MK 143 ARMOURED BOX LAUNCHING SYSTEM (8): The primary missile weapon of the battleship are the 8 ABL Tomahawks situated on the aft of the superstructure where several 5 inch gun turrents were removed. Each launcher carries 4 missile each and are lightly armoured.

* PRIMARY PURPOSE: Anti-Ship
* SECONDARY PURPOSE: Land attack
* MISSILE TYPE: BGM-109C Tomahawk Cruise Missile
* RANGE: 1,000 miles (1,600 Km)
* SPEED: 550 mph
* DAMAGE: 4D6x100
* BLAST RADIUS: 200ft
* RATE OF FIRE: Volleys of 1-2 missiles each launcher.
* PAYLOAD: 4 missiles each for 32 missiles total

3. MK 15 BLOCK 1 20MM VULCAN PHALANX (CIWS) (4): The Primary Close in defensive weapon of the battleships are the primary defence against inner range aircraft and missiles. These guns are almost totally automated and are very effective against low flying aircraft/missiles. Two defend each side of ship. Generally the battleship depends on escort for air/sub defence.

* PRIMARY PURPOSE: Anti-Missile
* SECONDARY PURPOSE: Anti-Aircraft
* RANGE: 1 mile (1.6 Km)
* DAMAGE: 5D6 MD per 60 rd burst, and 1D6 x10 for 100rd burst
* RATE OF FIRE: 5 bursts per round
* PAYLOAD: 1550 rounds
* BONUSES: +4 to strike

4. MK 141 HARPOON MISSILE LAUNCHERS (16): These are the principle Anti-Ship Missile Batteries aboard ship and are carried in two launchers, (featuring 4 tubes each,). They are designed to protect the battleship and the rest of the Fleet that it is attached to by taking out enemy ships at long range before they can get to close to pose a higher threat.

* PRIMARY PURPOSE: Anti-Warship
* MISSILE TYPE: Self-guided missiles
* RANGE: 92 miles
* SPEED: Mach 0.9
* DAMAGE: 2D4 x 100
* BLAST RADIUS: 150 ft
* RATE OF FIRE: Volleys of 1, 2, 3, 4, 8
* PAYLOAD: 1 missile per tube. 16 missiles total

5. MK 7 406 MM MAIN GUN BATTERY (9): The main armament of the battleship is it's guns. These monsterous 16 inch guns are capable of obliterating most anything it hits in today's navies barring carriers. They have been used for shore bombardment only since the Korean War and haven't fired against a ship since WWII.

* PRIMARY PURPOSE: Anti-Surface
* SECONDARY PURPOSE: Assault/Shore Bombardment
* RANGE: 14.9 miles Versus Surface targets / 5 miles Versus Airborne targets
* DAMAGE: 1D6x100 M.D.
* BLAST RADIUS: 150 feet.
* BONUSES: + 2 to strike With Pioneer Aloft above target area. (The ROV Pioneer craft aid in targeting of these guns on shore bombardment)
* RATE OF FIRE: 1 per gun every other round. Volleys of 1 to 9 per volley.
* PAYLOAD: 16-inch Projectiles : Turret I (387,) Turret II (456,) Turret III (367,) Total: 1,210

6. AN/SLQ-32 (V) 3 ELECTRONIC WARFARE SUITE: Used to defeat hostile radar and Sonar, the ECM/ESM, (Electronic Counter Measures,) jammers will confuse all radar and sonar so that the ships is much harder to be detected or locked onto with radar/sonar guided weapons. This does not give away the position of the ship but it does let the enemy know that they are there. The only way that it can be defeated is with ECCM, (Electronic Counter-Counter Measures.)

* PRIMARY PURPOSE: Block Enemy Radar/Sonar
* RANGE: 30 miles (48 Km)
* RULES: Confuses all radar/sonar within 30 miles, but can be defeated by ECCM, if the ECCM operator gets a higher Sensory Instruments percentage roll against the ECM operator.

7. MK 36 SUPER RAPID-BLOOMING OFF BOARD CHAFF/ FLARE DECOY DISPENSORS (6): The ships counter-measures dispensors consist of six six-barrelled 130mm Chaff/Flare launchers. Triggered by the Principal Weapons Officer, (PWO,) they will release either a chaff cloud or single flare depending on what the PWO chooses. They are used to confuse enemy missiles attacking the ship. Smart missiles get a 20% bonus when rolling on the below chart.

* 01-50 Missile/s detonated by Chaff/Flare
* 51-75 Missile/s loses track of target and veers away in wrong direction, (may lock onto another target)
* 76-00 No effect, missile is still on target

* Payload: Three of each type (per launcher) Reloads are automatic with 3 reloads per launcher before a manual reload is required. Stores hold 10 full reloads of the system.

The battleship also carrys 1 Helicopter and 3 UAV's, at the expense of not using the rear cannon.

My question is this: Why can a Carrier in game outpower dreadnaughts and battleships, if that isn't their main purpose at all?

Liberty's Dreadnaught: Carries 12 guns, 840000 armor, with an 8000000 Power output. Size is small, but it's capable.

Liberty's Carrier: Carries 16 guns, 1,100,000 armor, with a 9000000 power output. Very large.

Armor is not my concern here, size wise it seems accurate. But why would a Carrier vessel be capable of a 9000000 output weapons array along with carrying such a display of weaponry? It completely defeats the purpose of a Dreadnaught in game, if you can do the same thing as a dreadnaught in game, for the same price, as well as "Carry" Hundreds of ships.

Here's one that I can relate to a bit more. The Order's capital ships. I am a co-owner of a Light carrier, that holds several other bombers/fighters. Running recon missions alongside it is a lot of fun, and it's a great help for repairs on the spot when they're needed.

The Order Light carrier has 18 cruiser class guns. 18! Top a battleship shield with that, and I can take on other cruisers no problem. But, I only have so many bats/bots.

The Osiris has 12 battleship guns. It can still handle a Light carrier, but the carrier is able to put up a very strong fight. It's also agile, boasting a Thruster that most other ships flying with battleship shields don't get to enjoy. But that fits, since it's "Light" right?

I'll attack this at two points. a Roleplaying standpoint, and people's choices in ships.

First off, is the Roleplay of the ship. A Carrier is designed to carry, but so far they are capable of mass destruction, often times outdoing the ships that are supposed to be damage weapons wise. Carriers harbor a ton of ships, and are designed to maintain them. So, they should have a large number of bats/bots and be capable of repairs to the ships going into combat. That's my first arguement: Make Carriers capable of repairs towards its harbored vessels. The second is the idea of its firepower. With the exception of some long range missiles, a Carrier isn't going to have ANY defense against another capital level ship, but it does have some defense against other fighters. They shouldn't be capable of destroying other capitals, because that isn't their role. Making a Carrier somewhat capable against other fighters/bombers. There's a huge deal of danger with this, because an anti-fighter cap would be potentially overpowered. The Carrier is not an offense ship itself, it really shouldn't be directly involved in an attack unless it is under attack. But it's not entirely the job of the carrier to protect itself, it has tons of able ships to do that for him. My third resolution to make carriers fulfill a role is Make the ships incapable against capitals.

A lot of people would consider keeping the Carriers the same, as the ship doesn't "have" to be that way in order to roleplay it. But what about when people are choosing ships to fill purposes? I'll use some OOC standpoints. Someone goes in, wants to Captain a big ship because that's all the game means to him. Clearly a lolwut, but that doesn't matter. He goes and looks at ship descriptions, and sees the Carrier is much stronger and within his price range. So that's what he buys. Later, he's found soloing missions and soloing other players like nobody's business, because he happens to be good at capspam. Many people don't choose the role of the ship based on what it's supposed to do, they choose based on what it can do, so having a large transportation vessel capable of killing a battleship is very unreal to me.

Many of the spammers of capital ships often fly solo, despite that being a poor idea, and potentially OORP. Carriers are not meant to be on their own, they are filled with hundreds of ships, or supposed to be. Seeing a Carrier with escorts from its hull would make sense in game, yet you'll see them flying on their own doing whatever with just their guns. This is only done because they're a better option over the ships that are supposed to be designed to handle things via Firepower. Carriers shouldn't have a power supply large enough to support 16 battleship guns, because most of the ship is supposed to be put towards supporting its fighters. But when they're firing off heavy mortars like it's nothing, there's a problem. Battleships shouldn't be flown solo, but they sure as hell should be more fitted against ships than a carrier.

There's my thinking in a wall of text. If you can finish reading this, and place your comment, I applaud.

---

[El Nino]

Here's a Kicker... How about giving them really crappy powerplants but in exchange some 4000 b/b so they an support their escorts with regens? Perhaps massive shields of their own.

And naturaly alongside a giant nerf to their firepower. Perhaps Gunboat guns and cruiser powerplants...

---

Donate to the Poor Pilot's Fundation via Sirius Bank /givecash GreenHawk 1000000 now, and support poor pilots sirius wide!
Skype: jure.grbec
My primary char: Jose El Nino - Corsair Elder captain of the SS Greenhawk

Currently Inactive due to pursuit of life long dreams, will be back...*edited* As promised am back.

[Cosmos]

I think this is great,

You have defined every possible point where the Carriers Suck.

Kudos.

---

[22:50:33] ☆ҳ̸̲Ҳ̸ҳEternal†Nightmareҳ̸̲Ҳ̸ҳ☆(illi): i cyber with leather torps (smoking)

[Boss]

Carriers shouldn't have a power supply large enough to support 16 battleship guns, because most of the ship is supposed to be put towards supporting its fighters. But when they're firing off heavy mortars like it's nothing, there's a problem. Battleships shouldn't be flown solo, but they sure as hell should be more fitted against ships than a carrier.

I'll agree on the Mortar bit, but I personally don't think it's as massive a problem as you'd think. My carrier mounds Secondaries, a Razor, and four BS missiles. Some scream missilewhore. I reply with "I use guns that only go to 1.7k, and if I miss with a missile, I've lost a quarter energy.

I don't use armor. I never go anywhere without cover. And I still get shot up a lot. I don't think nerfing them is the answer. It's awareness.

---

Just go play the game and have fun dammit.

all in all the conclusion is that disco doesn't need antagonist factions, it doesn't need phantoms, it doesn't need nomads, it doesn't need coalition and it doesn't need many other things, no AIs, the game is hijacked by morons to confuse the game with their dickwaving generic competition games mixed up with troll-of-the-day.

[shadowjman]

I'll agree on the Mortar bit, but I personally don't think it's as massive a problem as you'd think. My carrier mounds Secondaries, a Razor, and four BS missiles. Some scream missilewhore. I reply with "I use guns that only go to 1.7k, and if I miss with a missile, I've lost a quarter energy.

I don't use armor. I never go anywhere without cover. And I still get shot up a lot. I don't think nerfing them is the answer. It's awareness.

Well yes, some people do RP them correctly, however. there are others who do not treat them as they should be. a carrier as he stated should not be able to wipe out everything else in the capital ship range without much of a problem. and their cost is all of like 70-100 mill more which isnt that much if you think about it

[Tenacity]

This is all mute point, since carriers in this game are not capable of fielding fighters and bombers, and the devs (well, igiss and admins, more like) have made it abundantly clear that player docking and launching npc fighters isnt going to happen.

Carriers in disco are only carriers in name and RP, outside of that they're balanced like battlecruisers and battleships, and it's probably going to stay that way.

The Order Light carrier has 18 cruiser class guns. 18! Top a battleship shield with that, and I can take on other cruisers no problem. But, I only have so many bats/bots.

The Osiris has 12 battleship guns. It can still handle a Light carrier, but the carrier is able to put up a very strong fight. It's also agile, boasting a Thruster that most other ships flying with battleship shields don't get to enjoy. But that fits, since it's "Light" right?

Even a poorly flown osiris can stomp an order LAC into the ground with relative ease. The carrier might scratch the battleship's hull a bit, but you're never going to win one on one.

Now if you honestly want to change how the order LAC is balanced, well... the only option is to turn it into a full fledged battleship, which I'm against since we already have one available. The Geb fills a different role than the Osiris right now, and it does that role fine. The only advantage in turning it into a battleship is that fewer players will fly one, due to higher cost.

so having a large transportation vessel capable of killing a battleship is very unreal to me.

Once more, the Order LAC is not capable of solo killing any battleship in the game. The only exception is if the carrier is kitted all for anti-cap weaponry, and the battleship has nothing but solaris turrets... and face it, that doesnt happen often.

Carriers are not meant to be on their own, they are filled with hundreds of ships, or supposed to be. Seeing a Carrier with escorts from its hull would make sense in game, yet you'll see them flying on their own doing whatever with just their guns.

Once more, it is not currently possible to launch NPC fighters/bombers, and it is not feasible to always have dozens of players in smaller ships with you. Maybe you'd like to suggest to the devs how to raise the server cap to 2000 players so we can do this, eh? Didnt think so.

The fighters can be RP'd, I often do this with my carrier, but past that you cannot balance the ship on the idea of always having other players around, because there will not always be other players around. This is why carriers are balanced light bc's and battleships, currently - because any other method would leave them underpowered in every situation that you can come up with.


Sorry, but you're going to have to deal with it, unless you've got the source code for freelancer in your back pocket.

---

[Tenacity]

Oh, and to add, why the hell dont we just re-name the carriers so we can be done with this discussion?

Rename the order carrier to "Order Heavy Battlecruiser", the Aquilon to "Zoner/IMG Light Battleship", and the liberty carrier to "Liberty heavy dreadnaught", then we can finally be done with this stupid argument.

---

[shadowjman]

@ Tenacity:

everyone is aware that they cant make the carrier launch ships. he is just saying nerf their cap ship killing ability pretty much. carriers in all reality, absolutely cannot kill a warship that is made for killing other ships. it is a specialized class of ship not made for head to head combat, it is a glorified command chair. that is why among its fighters it also is supported by things like battleships, cruisers, and frigates.

and the OLC can whack an osiris. ive seen it happen.

so. a carrier should be nerfed in power output and armament to better suit its imposed class of ship. and the player should hire escorts (other players) to form a carrier group. not just be a flying fortress

[reavengitair]

Kudos, Kudos Kudos.

What I would like is for Carriers to have heaps of bb, but have less weapons. Great idea on your part.

[Bass_masta992]

I'll agree on the Mortar bit, but I personally don't think it's as massive a problem as you'd think. My carrier mounds Secondaries, a Razor, and four BS missiles. Some scream missilewhore. I reply with "I use guns that only go to 1.7k, and if I miss with a missile, I've lost a quarter energy.

I don't use armor. I never go anywhere without cover. And I still get shot up a lot. I don't think nerfing them is the answer. It's awareness.

I don't so much think a nerf is needed, a change of role would be much better. Your ship is built in a way that you probably wouldn't do that great against another capital class ship. You have your ship designed in such a way that a Carrier would be designed. The power supply on the ship doesn't need to be lower, I realize that's the wrong way of looking for change.

---