A Good Idea Poorly Implemented

So, the hangar changes are already being talked about a lot, and I agree with the generally negative response to them.
Carriers, in a traditional long-range strike force sense, are almost totally useless. The delay between launches is simply too long, far too long, for them to be a feasible alternative to a gunboat or even a lanceboat.

But I like the idea, I understand the intention. More launch bays=a longer cool down, but a larger strike force; while a less launch bays reload faster with the change, making light carriers less powerful but more responsive.

I think this change can still be made to work if the cool-down started immediately after launching the strike craft, as before, but with a much longer cool down for more hangar decks and an inability to launch a second wave until the first wave either dies or returns to the mother ship. I think that would much more effectively achieve the intended goal and keep carriers somewhat competitive.

last edited by CALiGeR_Reborn

Yeah, I can see this as a good idea.

So dedicated carriers have to be punished for being carriers and launching big strike force?
The nerf is intended to kill full carrier fleets by removing the ability to spam a first wave of fighter that will scout and stick to ships/killing turrets.
But instead of nerfing the way fighters are in the game they preferred kill bays on a larger scale

@beernchips said in A Good Idea Poorly Implemented:

So dedicated carriers have to be punished for being carriers and launching big strike force?

No, not at all what I'm saying.
I'm saying that Heavy carriers (with 4 or more launch bays) have always been the only offensively useful carriers. Light Carriers just don't compete, they were for a free probe and fighter screening only. The reload differential would close that gap, so that both have their place offensively and defensive, and lots of small carriers would always win over one big carrier. So you'd get more variety, either a few big carriers with more firepower and durability to throw around in combat, or swarm-style light carriers which would be more effective at kiting and harassment.

The nerf is intended to kill full carrier fleets by removing the ability to spam a first wave of fighter that will scout and stick to ships/killing turrets.
But instead of nerfing the way fighters are in the game they preferred kill bays on a larger scale

I disagree, there are far more specific and targeted ways of dealing with that, a sweeping rework means carriers as an aspect of the game are the intended target, since the old way was hardly perfect to begin with. And given the sudden (relative, carriers of any kind are not great right now) usefulness of Light Carriers, that must be the intended result.

last edited by CALiGeR_Reborn

I would rather they makes the following changes :

  • CD of bays is reduced to 20-30 secs.
  • The CD starts when the squadrons are killed or when you recall
  • A squadron coming back reduce the CD of bays by 15 secs

With those changes, you cannot have 2 operating squads at same time but still have flexibility. You can recall in order to launch a better suited squad (for exemple recalling a scouting fighter if you have to send bombers on a vulnerable target) without be able to spam waves after waves to overrun the enemy

@beernchips That's far more punishing than just letting the CD go on after a launch and prevent further launches until that one returns or dies, in worst case scenarios I don't see it making a difference, and would still make for a long delay for all carriers between strikes unless you are very conservative with targets.

And just what was wrong with the previous system?

It was completely fine having multiple squadrons in the field. It's not like it made a difference.

Bombers couldn't do crap, too easily shut down. More fighters on your side just meant that enemy bombers couldn't do crap.

But at the very least it gave you that feel that there is ordnance war going on.

For me having multiple ordnance squadrons coming and going into the carrier only made it more climatic, and I very much enjoyed it.

But nooo, Tindalos had to go and f... even this up. Because Macros.
And Necrons.

@ahriman The old systems valued Heavy Carriers far more than Light Carriers. It meant ships with one or two launch bays were at a massive disadvantage as they did not perform effectively as carriers, and could not compete with true gunships and lance boats. Attempting to create limitations for heavy carriers I think is a good idea, it gives this otherwise somewhat useless family of vessels some sort of role.
At least, ideally. Right now it's been butchered by a rushed release. the beta testers barely had time to give feedback before the change was upon us, but with some changes the new system can be a great improvement. I agree that right now it's pretty awful

In the not-so-distant past Macros and Necrons were terribly weak, it was the right move to make them more competitive, now the focus shifts onto light carriers; which have forever been awkward at best or useless at worst.
Also why do you never talk on the Discord? I see your name pop up but you never say anything.

@beernchips pretty good proposal you made and it would make carriers not as reliant on Reload and they can opt for Lock on or brace for impact for a change.

Carriers current state atm is this

-Bombers have trouble dealing damage
Reason: Too many counters to them

ID suggest making them a little bit tougher and maybe even improve their speed by maybe 10% or whatever value seems balanced. Ships burning away can outrun bombers indefinantly and thats kind of a problem.

-BLOODY EXPENSIVE
Carriers still feel a little too expensive for what they bring to the table.
But if Ordnance is tweaked with how beernchips suggests and bombers improved the price can be justified.

Perhaps make it so utility carriers like devestations get a small price cut to make them worth grabbing while heavy carriers remain the same because they are supposed to be damage dealers.

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

Hey all,
We appreciate the discussion on this, and I just wanted to let you know the devs are aware of it! 🙂

Having small bay count should have a discount on the price because 1 bay ships (like SM vanguard or corsair solaris) are totally overprized when basicly they are just using scout fighters.
If we keep 4 bays as standard cost, having 2 bays is today 0.5 the price and 1 bay 0.25. 2 bays should be like 0.45 x price and 1 bay 0.15.