Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heezdedjim
How about the reverse: Give the option to turn the carrier into a gunship by giving up the hangars for two flank firing weapon slots on each side. Maybe the slots could only mount turrets. Although . . . 12-beam FAW boat would be major lulz.
Why..........?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihnako View Post
Why?
Pets are now useless in PvP, so at least it gives you something to do in a carrier other than wait to die.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Good Point. If they buffed the Vov back to what it was when it was "buffed" that may actually be a good counter to BFAW as it is now.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heezdedjim
Pets are now useless in PvP, so at least it gives you something to do in a carrier other than wait to die.
But turning it in to an overgrown cruiser is not the answer.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 45
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorgald View Post
But turning it in to an overgrown cruiser is not the answer.
Twelve weapon slots makes as least as much sense as two more weapon hangars and no weapons.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 46
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Twelve weapon slots would make every FED QQ. So this isn't an option and just stupid cause it will break the broken game even more.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 47
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heezdedjim
Twelve weapon slots makes as least as much sense as two more weapon hangars and no weapons.
No it doesn't, because then it wouldn't be a carrier.

There are other reasons as well but i cba to explain them.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 48
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by staalker View Post
So, in game with a dev we had a conversation about carriers. He asked :

What do you think about carriers losing all but one weapon slot in front and one in rear, and those other slots being used to add hangar capacity.

The idea was that you could equip "sub-hangars" in a weapon slot, but that it took two slots to equip it.

Those sub hangars couldn't hold things like Birds of Prey, but small fighter squadrons or even the shield repair drones.

The idea would be that you are sacrificing firepower of your main ship to get additional hangar support.

Someone asked, What about the spam people are already complaining about?

His reply was, the spam issue isn't a huge problem, and we have a few ideas for UI options that may help with "targeting through spam". He said that their data didn't show much more server strain or lag due to excessive fighters on the map, and that the real concern was making targeting the Carrier through those fighters easier for players to do.

I said that I'd be for using sub-hangars, and would really like that idea considered.

He didn't say that it was something being thought about, worked on or if it was something he had just thought up on the spot. I mentioned I would make a post and let the other carrier pilots chime in with their thoughts, and he asked me to leave his name out of it. I have forgotten his name now, anyway.

So, here we are, fellow carrier pilots. And while I know that a good number of Feds will come in and QQ that it would be overpowered and blah blah. Well, Fed's would be happy if Carriers were gone completely...until they get one. Then of course it will be, they are too weak we need more DPS.

So, ignoring those who dismiss the use of sub-hangars before they even test them, what does everyone else think? Would YOU give up 2 or 4 guns for more hangar space? And when/if the Feds get a carrier, they would get the same access to sub-hangars.

For more idea of how it works, what was said was:

Sub-hangars come in two pieces. They would work like set items do. There would be 2 for the front and 2 for the rear, they can only be slotted in the front or the rear by design. There are two ideas, one is that slotting one would reduce the cooldown of your actual hangars by up to 10%. Slotting both would change that cooldown bonus and spawn a certain type of secondary spawn. And of course, it's possible that slotting only one would do nothing at all.

So, for example, if you have "shield drone sub-hangar aft", you slot them both and you get a new ability to spawn a group of shield drones.

They may or may not be permanent, and they may or mat not be equal to normal drones. That would require testing first, but the hope is that they could be just like regular drones, Maybe fewer in number, or a longer cooldown. All things that have to be tested.

So basically you'd have to slot both halfs of the sub-hangar to get the spawns from it, and they have to be in the same location on your weapon slots.

Anyway, I liked the idea, and I hope it is something we can see one day. Sooner than later. =)

Please be polite and rational in your commentary. No one is asking for an "i win" button here, and remember, only constructive criticism and logical debate is useful.

Thanks for reading.


I would like HIM to play fed vs kdf where they X4 use a lot of spam, energy syphon, bops, and the scorpions throw in a bop or the battle cloak guy and all they do is confuse you and heal the other carriers around them...NOT FUN especially when for the 3rd time a HY shot went after a fighter or other spam.

IF they do something like this how about they can only heal pets of use the heal on self. and on top of that take scorpions and energy sphons off the list of things that can be directed to when you are confused. Because this wasnt fun at all.

Honestly after that match im not doing fed vs klingon pvp anymore until its fixed...now you want to give them more spam...FAIL
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 49
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Atari Community Rules and Policies ~<GM Jahia>
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 50
06-09-2011, 10:06 AM
I was making a point. Its sooo easy to just call someone a noob and that they cant play. I have seen Carriers used very effectivly and giving them more pets doesnt sit well with me.

And taking my quote out of context doesnt help your argument either.

I believe my first comment was that I would like them to test it first, because when used in large ammounts (large amounts of carriers that is) they can be used very effective, giving them more pets sounds like a bad idea. Now if there was a change in tandem with this one they should state it cause otherwise to think that some other magical change of balance will come out is just illogical.

we are talking about one update, specifically more spam on carriers. The point I brought up is in groups they can be used very effectively already.



I think the best part of this "conversation" is that I never said the carrier was OP...if you actually read what I said, they did something very effective. we havent found a good way to combat the strategy yet. What I would hate to see is our team using bfaw 1/2/3 to do it, I mean I thought this game was supposed to not have an I win button, we have been tryn different things, I changed things up but didnt matter in our 2nd match, hopefully the third will be more interesting.

Giving them more spam and having no other changes would be op and yes, that would include taking away the weapon slot to give them the hangar...NOW I said it the word OP

See how easy it is to just call someone a noob and that they dont know what they are doing? This thread is pointless...


"They come here and cry and complain about this and that. They don't rationally talk about what should be fixed, how it is overpowered and a logical way it could work better. Intead, they scream doom and claim false ideals to be true."

ROFL!! i guess its to much to ask for people to actually real my posts around here, tell me, did you read my posts in here or just attack me cause you saw i was as fed player in the klingon secton? This This is whats wrong with this thread. I was stating a personal experience not calling the ship op mind you, but the idea they want to do imo would be.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 AM.