Snib#1627 posted (#post-39826)


- Bolt Gun Turrets

- Heavy Mortar Turrets

- Light Particle Turrets

I feel as though secondaries shouldn't have been nerfed. One of the main arguments for reducing the range of certain weapons is the ability for ships to harass enemy artillery causing them to lose the Glass Cannon effect. When players pick up these super-ranged secondaries they are making a conscious decision to gain the benefit of being able to out range artilleries. I feel as though this nerf effectively removes that element of strategy and devalues them as secondaries.

Macross#4207 posted (#post-39121)

Boarding Party I think can be really cool. If a Boarding Party successfully Boards an enemy ship, a debuff is applied like hull damage-over-time or system sabotage. Ex: Unable to warp jump, or use shields for a few seconds.

Oh boarding party is a great idea!

I would definitely think slower energy regeneration, increased module cooldowns, and/or increased reload times could add to the strategy of the heavy carrier. I've added Boarding party as a Primary Module where all squadrons launched, during its duration, have a boarding party accompany them. is the official unofficial one

You should probably have straw polled this instead.

I set one up for you here

Aseron#1705 posted (#post-39046)

A large part of my choice of bombing-runs vs damage-per-run was give a different feeling to each ship. Where as my proposed Light Carrier would have some thing akin to a constant swarm that engulf the enemy ship, the Heavy Carrier would be closer to a surgical striker, trying their best to harass enemy artillery and tacticals.

Might be better to invert that... giving a smaller carrier a larger bulk of fighters sort of goes against common sense. Perhaps have it go heavy to light classifications like with the destroyers. Biggest one with most (weak) fighters comes first, and smallest (and fastest) one with the real heavy-hitting (slightly larger in size and quality, but smaller in number) aircraft as the rank 25 piece.

That is something I've been considering. I've been trying to find figure out good damage numbers, i plan on adding this to the 1.6 thread update

Aseron#1705 posted (#post-39021)

Using Zaraks mode of controlling aircraft, even if not in addition to a new ship class, would generate a new client base who are interested in the concept this game is based on but who also enjoy RTS type games.

Thanks for understanding that.

Also my name is Zerek, not Zarak

Thanatoss#5395 posted (#post-37951)

Guns have "cooldown" too, it is called reload.

Ur idea is good I would like to see something like that too but... why bother making something completely new from scratch if u can easily change what u have into it with minor changes.

That's like saying "Why invent Ball-peen hammers, when sledge hammers already exist?"

btw Module Amplifier is "passive" skill not active module number 4 which would make u unable to take WARP or other.

I am fully aware of that, but that doesn't change the fact that you can buff your Fighter by using having Module Amp installed.

Don't rage at me. Make it possible and as easy as possible so we maybe will see it.

Code isn't only problem. Devs would need NEW MODELS for 3 SHIPS!!! For now I see no hopes for that.

Next problem is that 6 classes and only 5 players in team is little problematic.

For a online multiplayer game to continue being relevant the Devs will have to release new content. This will undoubtedly include new ships and new ship classes. Surely they plan on releasing more modules as well, that should mean that a lot of their stuff is going to need many more lines of code, new models, new animations, and balancing across the board. As it says in the title itself, this is a idea.

I'd however love to hear why having more ship classes than players is a problem

Thanatoss#5395 posted (#post-39016)

Btw. I see no way for it not being "noob-ship" - simply too easy or too weak especially in competitive.

What makes you think that?

Better ask for more fighter style modules for dreadnought and aim to customise your dreadnought into carrier. Guys you all ask for it to be slow (like dreadnought), not that tanky (dreadnought without armor amp maybe????) and have buffs (DREADNOUGHT have already armor "aura") so why cevs would even bother to actually create new ship class just to create something almost same.....

JUST BUFF fighters and add module for 4th slot that will buff fighters or give you even more fighters!

This thread was created to illustrate the possibility of creating a Carrier Class of ships (as stated in the very first paragraph of my OP). When I create a thread dedicated to discussing the Dreadnought Class Ships and their modules i'll let you know.

Aseron#1705 posted (#post-39014)

Giving the heaviest carrier the hit points of a Medic does not seem particularly well balanced. The way I see a carrier is as a massive target (lets give the largest one 45,000 hp) , with fairly high (slightly faster than Invictus) strait line speed, but with the turning capabilities comparable to the Monarch, if not worse.

Honestly i kinda want to go 30k/35k/40k armor with carriers, but i felt as though this might present a problem with how well a corvette could deal with a Carrier. However I'll add this to my notes for my 1.6 update.

I see it having fairly poor weaponry on itself (lets give it a medic's secondary weapon options and primary weapons comparable to a corvette's except with maybe a few more turrets that can fire at once -- but with fairly large blind-spots directly above and below).

The currently suggested secondaries would actually deal less DPS at their respective ranges than the Tactical Cruiser secondary weapons.

Lastly, given how under-powered interceptors and other module aircraft are currently, I think that the carrier should have access to no less than 5 squads of 5 fighters a piece, or 3 squads of 4 interceptors a piece. It may not be a bad idea to add in a new type of aircraft like zerek suggested (the bomber) -- give it the slowest speed of all the aircraft in the game, but also make its bombs fairly powerful (lets say, one bomb from a bomber is worth 6.5 bombs from a fighter).

A large part of my choice of bombing-runs vs damage-per-run was give a different feeling to each ship. Where as my proposed Light Carrier would have some thing akin to a constant swarm that engulf the enemy ship, the Heavy Carrier would be closer to a surgical striker, trying their best to harass enemy artillery and tacticals.

As far as i know all GP, Heroships will stay on your account every time they wipe progress. I assume Fleet Recruitment Pack-exclusive ship emblems and decals are included in this

Thanatoss#5395 posted (#post-37915)

All this ideas will be very hard to implement to the game.

I've never written more code than "Hello World", so i don't presume to know how difficult it would be to implement this. It is mostly just a base concept

I suggest easy way to make dreadnought into carrier (optionaly):

1. Buff/change primary modules -fighters/interceptors.

2. Add next IV module with even more fighters/maybe support fighters drones whatever OR simply module which would BUFF FIGHTERS!!!

Fun fact, Dreadnoughts have two more available modules than any other ship. The buffing to fighters/interceptors exists already and is called Module Amper, it gives you 30% extra damage on modules that you activate while you have energy to weapons.

Now u have dreadnought with many fighters BUT without warp and nukes (or very strong fighters).

Only big problem would be to balance fighters a bit, and maybe add some more control to them like 3 ways to control them

-aim at enemy+use module = they will attack up to some range (maybe unlimited would make more sense but that would be stupid because yee shoot and hide)

-aim at ally+use module = they will follow and defend

-aim at nothing+use module = they will follow you and defend u (much like now).

Remember that dreadnought without warp and broadside/nuke already is very much like carrier slow big heavy ... but fighters right now NEED tweaks and changes.

The problem that i see going this route is the player's interactivity with the game. I'm not sure that using fighters as a module presents the same level of feedback and tactical awareness that my own idea would, not to mention the fact that the modules sit on cooldowns that the player does not have any control over. In simple terms it becomes a lot more boring, something that is already prevalent with the current modules.