(03-27-2018, 09:49 PM)OrignlGaminGeneration Wrote: I even offered to do the close combat while they fired their Hurricanes and Nightmare torps from a 3 k distance and always the same answer " No. That is a Valor".
Stress on the "A". A Valor. One Valor. This means that they didn't want to join you because they didn't want to treat the player behind the Valor unfairly. 2 vs 1 is unfair. They were not afraid, they just thought you could kill him alone. If you can't, you should have offered them to kill it instead, while you would stay in reserve in case something unpredictable happens, like another Valor arriving, or your mate losing connection. The battle they will not lose.
(03-27-2018, 09:49 PM)OrignlGaminGeneration Wrote: In the mean time how about offering training to the Indie Dunkirk so they would get the "soldier" mentality instead of "warrior" thinking. Soldiers win wars, Warriors die and have statues erected to inspire the masses.
I already do that, and what you pointed out in the about soldier vs warrior is part of my training, but I explain it differently. To me, it is Romans vs barbarians. This means that, even if you have great personal skill, you will contribute to the general effort minimally if you do not coordinate with others. On the other hand, even if your skill in duels is average, you can contribute a great deal in a fleet battle if you coordinate well with others. A single barbarian will beat a single Roman. However, a Roman army will beat a barbarian army. Coordination and discipline.
Still, this is not needed if your opponent is just 1 Valor. We, in the BAF|, treat our opponents fairly so that they would come again, otherwise we would have nothing to shoot at. So, we don't gank them with 2 ships on 1, or a gunboat against a fighter, or similar. At least if we're just having a normal pew, but if we're defending a convoy with cargo, or a POB, then we'll use all that is necessary.
The "A Valor" was followed by up with green PM of how they did not think 2v1 could win against Valor. I disagree with the "unfair" aspect of your thinking. however I do see your point of people not returning if you "gank" them. I grew up in a military family and there is no such thing as fair play in War. 1v1 fair play IS warrior thinking. Soldier thinking is using all assets to bring to bare to accomplish victory. If I am out there alone and a Valor, Fighter and Battle Cruiser was before me than I expect to be attacked by them all and I will attack them. It will lead to a really quick demise of my ship which I am ok with. It is why I don't watch 1v1 fighter battles inRP after watching 2 battles when I first purchased Carrier. The only time I stick around is if I see same enemy tag in near by systems. then I just shoot the annoying NPCs that engage PvP players. I do respect the wishes of the players when they refuse the "assisting friendly" that I offer. And Group coordination is critical. If the the Dunkirk and the training is a match for Gallic forces then why did the BAF groups and Indie IDs lose so badly at the "Battle for Leeds"? I saw the videos on You Tube someone posted of this engagement and it was one sided.
I think carriers should deploy ships and support the fleet. It is possible with docking modules however we don't have 500 player playing on the server. I don't understand why Docking modules are needed, they don't have any advantage. Why you need a carrier with docking modules? you can fly faster with a fighter/bomber.
It seems most people want Docking Modules because RP reasons. I think carriers should have deployable drone fighter/bombers or change them to Heavy Battleships to make them useful in fleet fights. Docking modules doesnt give any advantage to carrier/fighters.
If someone can manage to force AI to attack a target with FLHook.We may able to make carriers unique but don't know what other devs thinking about that.Probably very time consuming job.I think biggest reason for not having drone support for carriers was forcing AI to attack a target. Afaik other commands is possible
(03-27-2018, 05:12 AM)OrignlGaminGeneration Wrote: its turn rate should be 8+ with an initial fanning out before turning to it's target and then striking from multiple random vectors doing moves of a veteran fighter pilot at the same time ( this is what they would do in real life UAV to break up the anti fighter flak and fire consentration).
A weapon that can launch UAV is basically Missile Launcher with Fighter models. What you say is not possible unless you ask for Kamikaze, that can work.
We can't add weapons to missiles as well as AI mechanism. So it will move towards target and hit the target.
I think best way to make Carriers useful is changing them to standard Battleships.
Ok. If that would work as a Kamikaze it would be something unique to Carriers. For it to be effective as a UAV it would then have to be 1 UAV per fire with a higher refire rate (like 3.35-3.5) and low energy use ( 1/5 th of Hellbores per UAV) with 1/5th or 1/6th of damage to shields and armor of Hellbores per UAV, yes? How fast/slow would it have to be to work as UAV kamikaze? I would think like torpedo slow ( keeping in mind that Bret Carrier has only 2 Heavy slots and that combined with slow maneuvers is why it sucks against other Caps in 1v1). I was looking for something in the Bretonian Carrier to be able to take on Gallic Battlecruisers. They pretty much leave battle with the Invincible unscathed by firing out of secondary turret range and dropping CM against Missle/torpedo which Bret carrier can only fire 2 at a time do to only 2 heavy slots. Since they dropped the Hellbores from 800m to 700m on the last up date they don't even hit the Cap Lyon when doing its circular turret steering and 90% of the primary fire misses as well when Lyon keeps a 2.5 k distance whether I turret steer or not. I have tried Bret Missle turret with Hurricane torp In Heavy slots and fired Primary at CMs as they head towards Cap ship but the Primary's are not quite that accurate and misses half the time. This is why the UAV idea for Carriers to give more of a challenge in PvP with Gallic Battlecruisers. I don't mind losing for that is part of the fun. However to have that kind of dominance against a Carrier feels off with what I understand of Carriers capabilities in real life.
(03-28-2018, 12:21 AM)OrignlGaminGeneration Wrote: The "A Valor" was followed by up with green PM of how they did not think 2v1 could win against Valor. I disagree with the "unfair" aspect of your thinking. however I do see your point of people not returning if you "gank" them. I grew up in a military family and there is no such thing as fair play in War. 1v1 fair play IS warrior thinking. Soldier thinking is using all assets to bring to bare to accomplish victory. If I am out there alone and a Valor, Fighter and Battle Cruiser was before me than I expect to be attacked by them all and I will attack them. It will lead to a really quick demise of my ship which I am ok with. It is why I don't watch 1v1 fighter battles inRP after watching 2 battles when I first purchased Carrier. The only time I stick around is if I see same enemy tag in near by systems. then I just shoot the annoying NPCs that engage PvP players. I do respect the wishes of the players when they refuse the "assisting friendly" that I offer. And Group coordination is critical. If the the Dunkirk and the training is a match for Gallic forces then why did the BAF groups and Indie IDs lose so badly at the "Battle for Leeds"? I saw the videos on You Tube someone posted of this engagement and it was one sided.
This is not war. This is a game. We play here, nothing is serious. In-game player actions have no consequence to the story development. The story development is pre-planned. For example, the Rheinland Military won almost every single battle in the Rheinland-Liberty war, in-game, but the Liberty Navy won the war. No matter how many Valors you kill, or how many Dunkirks a Valor kills, the story will stay the same. This is so in order to allow players to play. Otherwise, it would indeed be like war. And war is ugly. Most of us here prefer games.
I do like your stance, though. You won't whine if you get swamped. Many players will, and not only that, they will complain on the forums, too, and be very loud about it!
There have been multiple battles in Leeds. Some were BAF defeats, some were BAF victories. Many players who I trained to use Dunkirks later also bought Valors, which is why there is also good Valor captains around. It makes battles a challenge sometimes, which is good, because otherwise they would be too easy to be fun.
Concerning the video you watched (link, please?), there is also videos of BAF victories in Leeds. I think that this one is the most recent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=998aA_UQa7M
This battle was 9 vs 9. However, the GRN side had a less suitable combination of ships, a part of their ships were not armed for such a situation, they had worse coordination and, apparently, no battle plan. Or a bad one. You can see the detailed explanation of the situation in my battle report here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid1980961
There is another example of how the Bretonian capital fleet can smoothly triumph over the Gallic one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUo6m5b78aM (the video is sped up a litte, bombers don't really move that fast; he is not engaging because it was a previously organized event, and fighters/bombers were not allowed, so his job was to record)
And another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-zCHs1XK3c (I had an old computer at this time, which couldn't process all the ships, so I had 1 frame per second, and you'll notice my ship just standing by the side )
And these are not the only ones, but I'm not going to spend my whole day quoting links.
)![[Image: 396AUfe.png]](https://i.imgur.com/396AUfe.png)