In my multiplayer games, I rarely if ever see anyone build a Capital Carrier for the simple fact everyone as in EVERYONE loves spamming light carriers.
In these spammer's mind they think: "Why would I get an expansive capital ship that I need to lv. up to make any use of, when I could get 6 light carriers for the price of 1 Sova?"
They are right. Simply next to the light carrier these things are too weak. Honestly, since I only have a lot of experience with TEC, the Sova embargo is very unrealistic (you think he just gonna let you sit there?) to use every game effectively and their HP and shields are very weak compared to the Kol.
This just highlights how easily spammable light carriers have become and they really definately need a nerf. They made the cap ships useless.
To make these cap ships useful I advocate.
-Let them start with 4 Strike Craft and then upgradable by leveling up to 10 strike wings.
-Give them a built in Flak turret (3 or 4) and the Flak burst ability. (They will get focused fired on by the light carrier spammers)
-Increase the build time for strike craft for all ships (general balance so SC are not instantly replacable.)
Light Carrier spam have come to ruin this game they need:
-Slight nerf in sheilds and hull points + a range limit of only 3/4 of the gravity well for its flight wings. Right now there is nothing that can prevent Carriers from sitting at the VERY VERY EXTREME edge of the well and jumping out at the first sign of trouble.
I don't want to nerf the Light Carrier to Oblivion I use them myself, but it is simply way too effective and ruins this game because it is un-counterable (Flak is useless, and SC are instantly replacable) and invulerable if used right.
Who is with me?
I think capital carriers should start with more squadrons, and advance at a slower rate. But that's because I think their damage should be focused more in the squadrons, rather than the capital ship's main armaments.
thank you Hack78. I repeat Star Destroyer are mainly meant to DESTROY other destroyer (heavy laser canon) and conquer planet (9700 storm troopers)...not strike craft directly. Yes they hold 72 tie fighter in stock(12 squadrons)...star destroyer relies on strike craft to defend themselves against strike craft. When its SC is out, Star destroyer doesn't use its flak anyway in order to avoid friendly fire...maybe except Vador ship..(anyway Imperator Flak system is a mix of ion cannon and turbo laser, it's fair good system but quite useless against small SC like X or A wings, but Y wing are cut in pieces. But Imperator have also missile against fastest ship)I don't really know battlestar universe. I'm more found of wing commander where carrier are just carrier with very limited defense system.
Creditsuisse, I don't understand why you are so harsh against Sova, even Halcyon or Vasari one. If you don't like them don't build it, and choose another cap ship that better suits to your game style. Personnally I use carrier cap ship but not as my first cap ship maybe third or forth one.
Personnally I find Sova a useful carrier for my game style : battery missile+improved strike craft.Halcyon is very useful with your abilities(telekenic push is the best..)Vasari has a very useful repair cloud, a very nice support ship.
I guess Credit Suisse that for you Capital ship should be ship of size of Star wars Star destroyer Imperator. In Sins, I find Cap ships are smaller and are not as complete as an imperator.
my solution a few threads down is a good solution to this.
Carrier caps have always been pretty bad with exception of pre-nerf Sova, which had a niche of its own.
i dunno bout the others but the halycon is still great in my opinion
Firath, the others cap carriers are useful also ..
But Halcyon is the lone cap carrier able to defend itself against strike craft due to telekenic push. The two others are mainly support cap ship.
Guy's just because the Halcyon is decent doesn't mean it should be even more decent.
What we're trying to do here to emphasize the frequent use of the Capital Carrier over the Light Carrier which is everyone's favorite spam unit. In terms of absolute dmg output and direct combat usefulness, 6 Light Carriers would easily take the cake over the Capital Carrier anyday.
This is a problem. The Capital Carrier should be much more capable of net returns on gaining experience so that in the long run its a much better choice than the light carrier. To these ends, that is the reason why they should start with 4 SC and max out at 10, weak flak, and better survivalibilty.
well i was moar thinking that the push plus having the enery cooldown buff to my DVs is what makes it useful
extra craft per squad is also a nice bonus
tho im having trouble figuring out wether anima tempest actually does anything
oh and suiss use small words and simpiler terms so that idiots like me can understand tehm
hmm, its seems that many feel Caps suck. alone, they seems to yes, but that is the idea. the primary role of the Capital ship is a support ship. due to the large expense of them, thier numbers will be limited. pure numbers, the cheaper a unit is, there more of them there are. Caps are not meant to be stand alone, not at all. Caps like the Dunov, which are mostly useless in combat, ARENT MEANT FOR PRIMARY COMBAT. you want to attack ships, build a Kol, or Akkan. want SC, build the carrier. yea, it would be nice for all caps to have more SC, but then what would the purpose of the carrier be then eh? if you want the Dunov to be more combat worthy, rather than an economic pain, then there would be no difference between the caps, and yall would be complaining there is no difference to them. I enjoy a good mix to my fleets and during big battles, letting most the ships do what they do, while managing the caps.
and comparing this game to any other sci-fi, cmon, i would love to know what would win, the Excelsior class or a Star Destroyer as much as anyone, but, lets keep this as a game in debate. leave the comparisons for a different thread.
as for the actual thread topic, yes, i agree the the Cap carriers could use a little more SC capability, but i do enjoy fielding Sovas when im TEC. i may be able to get more SC with light carriers, but they dont have the abilities that the Cap has. i frequently find a couple Sova carriers in my fleets when i am TEC, and they are just fine there, and quite useful when they are placed where their abilities can come into use.
i think the caps should be the back bone of the fleet and then have the othe ships support/escort it
like with current US naval fleets theyre built around the aircraft carriers
each of the support destroyers and crusers and what not play different roles in keeping the carrier safe and adding to the overall striking force of the fleet but the aircraft carrier still has the most fire power and are the backbones of the fleet
Let's say the devs do exactly what you want - the capital carrier is buffed in numbers of strikecraft, and then everyone switches over to using it and forgets about light carriers. Have you now created a new problem for yourself? Might this result in dreaded carrier cap spam instead of light carrier spam? What would you do then?
On a separate but related note, it seems that you hate spam quite a lot, and I think it drives a lot of your thoughts on these matters. Now, I have no problem with your hating spam - many people do. But my point is, you can't (and won't) ever get rid of spam. Period. Paragraph. If you nerf one unit that is spammed, in order to (in your mind) "eliminate spam," it will merely be replaced by another spam. If you then nerf the next spammed unit, it will be replaced by yet another spam. You are playing "whack a mole" where you whack one mole (spam) and another one pops up.
That's not to say that changes and adjustments cannot be made to a game. Rather, its to say that your inner motivation for doing it should probably be to "make the game better" or "eliminate a true imbalance" rather than "eliminate spam." The former can be done, you see. The latter can never be done.
He obviously hasn't thought it through. If he had he would realise that you would only be able to start off with a carrier as the way he wants the game balanced, no other ships at the start would be able to stand up against it - e.g. LRM become useless as the carrier cap would strife them...
Agreed, and disagree, Agent of Kharma. Spam will always be there. buff or debuff the carrier units, and then people will spam another unit. Mayhaps though a solution is available. Create a Mod that limits the number of a single unit. That way only 1/4 of you total ships can be of a single type, or however it could work. That would force variance to the game play. yes, people will complain that previous stratagies of many small groups dont work anymore, ie, 2 kodiak, 1 carrier, but, people will always complain about something. I find spam irritating, and droll. a good fleet mix not only is interesting, but nice to watch. various graphical effects come into play, and also causes opponents to try to counter what you do.
Overall though, yes, spam can not be removed. but here in Sins, on multiplayer, mayhaps a mod can remove it.
its true that, that may happen but the limiting factor is that ...well for large fleets play you can only have 16 caps
thats still a lot but i think you would have less SCs with 16 carrier caps than you would with 100 or so light carriers
of course people could always use both then depending on the pace of the game...
Also Capital Carrier's are flippin expensive. Capital Ships are flippin expensive. The sheer cost alone will not let spammers effectively spam enough SC spam to end all spam. It just isn't possible and they'll have to get balanced fleets. Also Capital Ships will HAVE TO lv. up to reach a optimal number of Strike Craft.
Thus, the light carrier will still be very viable. All in all, its not that big of a buff to the Capital Carrier - just a much needed and desired one.
This would be a hugely better alternative than to light carrier spam.
i wouldnt say that its a hugely better alternitive...infact carrier spam and the uselness of cap carriers is almost unrelated
at worst assuming that they do make cap carriers stronger you get players using a few cap carriers + light carrier spam
Am I just getting too old (I turned 21 a couple months ago, yes, twenty-one, it was a joke not a typo) or are those bars too impossibly small to read? I've got a high quality Samsung 22" widescreen display running at 1680x1050 and I sit a couple feet from it. I can tell there are bars there... I can see units flashing red... but it's all so tiny...
I've got glasses... they're pretty old now, like 4 or 5 years, but I can still see crystal clear. I think really those bars are too small and the icons too similar to one another that it's just wasted screen space. Heresy, I know. Maybe I'll bring my 1080p 42" TV up here...
ANYWAYS, do this and it'll fix everything: http://forums.impulsedriven.com/340566
I'm running 1920x1200 - no issues
What's your monitor size tho?
...
Something's amiss here... I read something in this thread that was wrong...
Star Destroyers don't carry 72 fighters! They carry 7 squadrons minimum, depending on your source, and 12 fighters per squadron... so... 84. Ha ha ha. I win at failing.
24" baby
Assuming we are talking Imperial class here...
From Wikipedia
From wookipedia
If you take the Timothy Zhan trilogy that kick started the SW expanded universe - there were 72 Ties available to launch from the SD at the battle for the lost Katanna fleet. One of those was a bomber squadron.
Pulling off of this:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_I-class_Star_Destroyer
There are 48 fighters
12 bombers
12 boarding craft.
later on, 12 or more fighters would be replaced by interceptors.
Just to make a quick correction to some bad math in the OP. The Sova costs 3000 credits. The TEC carriers cost 835. So you can have about 3.5 for the price of a Sova, not six.
That equals 7 sc from carriers(assuming u can build a half cc ) to the six that Sova can carry.
Actually, just ignore my last post, since it's irrelevent. Comparing light carriers to capital carriers is comparing apples to oranges - it can't be done. You can compare the Sova to the Halcyon or Skiranta (or even to other capital ships), and you can compare the light carriers of each race, but you can't compare capitals to cruisers (well, you can, but nothing useful will come of it).
Yes, they both carry strikecraft, but that's where the discussion ends. Economically speaking, you are asking people to compare 3-4 unarmed, moderately armoured/shielded cruiser-type ships to a single, armed, heavily armoured/shielded capital ship. The number of strikecraft you'll get is all you can talk about - 6-8 with the light carriers, 2-3 (starting at lvl1) with the capital ship. But then how do you reconcile the heavier protection and weaponry of the capital ship? Is it irrelevent? It's not, of course, but is the damage that can be produced by the ship's guns and the added hitpoints/armour/shield over the course of the game worth the extra credits that could have been spent on extra strike craft instead? Damage and hitpoints that increase over time with upgrades and levels? There's no system for making a viable comparrison, especially when you realize that you can start with one capital ship for free, while the light carriers must be paid for, not just by themselves, but after an initial investment of Military Labs and the research to be able to build them at all.
The same thing occurs if you look at them both strategically. In terms of grand strategy and fleet tactics, they're both designed to fill different rolls. The light carriers sole purpose is to cheaply fill a grav-well with swarms of strike craft to do with as you see fit. A capital ship's role is much more complex. Being armed and generally well protected, they can lead fleet into battle directly, inflicting damage with both their strike craft and onboard weapon systems. They also have a complement of abilities (some tactical, some strategic) that can shape how a battle plays out. Also, light carriers can be taken apart one at a time, whereas a capital ship must be completely destroyed before it's strike craft can be taken out permanently (though you lose a much greater investment in time and money losing one capital ship over 3 or 4 light carriers). Just as with the above example, there's no way to compare these complex variables in any meaningful fashion that players can use to make informed decisions about how to play the game.
What's better - 4 Percherons or a level 1 Sova? Why? How about 4 Percherons and a level 10 Sova?
Even that falls apart when you take into account that you're building other types of ships too. So what's better - A level 1 Sova and ten Cobalts, or seven Percherons? Again, why? How about that Sova and 5 flak frigates against those same seven Percherons? Or four Percherons and ten Javelins against a level 3 Sova and seven Hoshinkos?
Now what you can do is talk about what you prefer to build and play, because personal play style is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion that can provide useful information for players, letting them consider new tactics and strategies that may not have occured to them. That's a meta-game, and that's healthy. But you can't start saying that one strategy or ship or race is definatively better than one or the other without a lot of proof to back you up - proof which rarely (if ever) presents itself in these types of threads. I may not post a lot on these forums, but I read them everyday, and the huge amount of disagreement over just what constitutes the 'best' strategy to run, or the 'best' ships to build, or the 'best' race to play, demonstrates to me that there isn't a 'best' anything.
cut it with the star wars refs already none of the discussion ever gets to any of the benifts/consequences like this
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
