test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Two Weapon Carrier??
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
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.
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.
0
Comments
Id use sub hangers but Id like to option to either use weapons or swap out to extra hangers or vice versa.
The concept of giving up weapon slots for extra hanger has been discussed in this forum before and I think the general censuses was wed all like the option to be able to switch to weapons to extra hangers or be able to switch from hangers to extra weapons.
Could you imagine having a Carrier with 5 forward and aft weapon slots, it would be a true gunship :eek:
Extra hangers would be nice but Id like to be able to choose weather I need more deployable craft or more personal fire power.
I rather like 0Gambit0's suggestion that we have the choice to use the subhangars or weapons slotted as we choose with limitations to keep the carrier from becoming a 5fore/5aft weapon arraingment.
If the Devs would give better pet commands as well then the idea is all the better for it.
But I would like a Pet UI so I could focus my pets to certain targets.
I get what your saying about weapons INSTEAD, but you can swap items from your inventory to your ship when out of combat.
I don't see how that would be a problem.
First we'd need some pet controls because without it the carriers only form of attack would be flying around spawning uncontrollable pets with remedial ai.
Second would be either a straight up buff to their survivability or what I would prefer, a system by which we can upgrade our pets in various ways. Otherwise one good aoe would wipe all our pets and leave us with the least maneuverable ship in the game and only 2 weapons to fight with until our pets get off cooldown.
But in all, I'm for it if its actually viable and fun to play.
The carrier itself is basicly a dreadnought but with a modified cruiser layout. So why sacrificing 2 weapon slots for an additional hangar bay?
IMHO at least for point defence you need 2 fore and 2 rear weapon slots so you could think about making on weapon slot universal for weapon or hangar purpose.
Since the shipmodel has hangar bays directing in the flight direction those bays "universal" slots could/should only be in front (otherwise they need to add an animation where the fighters/BoPs will start reverse?).
But therefore there are some fixes needed
- FAW need to be fixed
- shields needs to be on paar with a sci ship or at least +50% of what they are now
- your pets should at least not despawn at the end of a current battle
- you'll have to spawn and command your pets from a greater distance
- finecontrol for your pets similar to your officers in groundcombat (simple)
3 things that makes this not work tho. /edit: actually 4 things, 4th being the autodock after combat ends.
1. No way to direct your fighters (pet commands).
2. FAW or any "stackable/prolonged area damage ability"
3. To long cooldown on relaunch.
Either we launch all pets and have a longer cooldown or make the cooldown we have now a LOT shorter.
Example: shorten the cooldown to the point that if we spam the skill(s) the second they were up we would field a full "fleet" in the same time BoP's cooldown is now.
Alternatively make us launch the full fleet all at once and add a minute to the cooldown, personally i don't like this idea as much because it takes no time at all to kill off our pets as it is now.
/edit2: About the autodock after combat, they could make the hangar bays we have now not audodock after combat ends, but still have the ones they add do that, that way we won't be totally useless for how long it now will take to relaunch the fighters when combat starts.
For a fully pet centric carrier to work our pets needs to have good survivability, and we need the ability to tell them what to attack and where to go, and area attacks needs to be seriously toned down.
If we can't have any of that and they still make this change then they will just kill the carrier totally in pvp.
That said, i do invite the devs to at least try the change anyway and let us test it extensively on tribble. But the devs in charge of the changes would also need to be really really active on the forum for this change and throw all their ideas out there for us to discuss and give feedback on, not just read the forum and never reply like they do now, that helps no one.
But they would need to make it a serious testing attempt like they were intending for this to actually go live, no placeholder items and such stuff, even if it ends up getting scrapped.
I know Cryptic usually do this kind of testing on their internal testing server but this is just to big a change for Cryptic alone to make such a decision.
We players need to have a say in this. After all, we're the ones ending up having to deal with the results, good or bad.
This would work as 2 port hangers one front and one aft and 2 starboard hangers front/aft
So if you have 2 bop equipped and one extra hanger bay then you could have 4 bop out for one side and 3 for the normal side
If you had 4 extra hanger bays equiped then you could get 5 bop out per side
So you can get up to 10 pet waves but it would take a really long time to get them all out.
It would also only be 2 pet types same as now.
Unlike the way they are saying 2 bop and 2 fighers or powerdrain/shield heals would be 12 waves of pets.
with up to 4 different pet types.
Keep it simple
oh god my eyes, next time tidy up your walls of texts, makes it that much easier to read.
1: Either they increase the carriers shields and hull making them like modern day carriers (almost no attack capability up close but hard as hell to sink) or they let you have 4 wepon slots instead of just 2 so you can still defend yourself to some degree.
2. Add a pet menu like some people have mentioned already, doesnt have to be much just simple commands like change target or return.
3. Change the launching and returning functions. ex: you can choose to leave your fighters out to have them ready at a moments notice, but then some may be dmged or you wouldnt be able to launch more as fast. If you recall them your defencless but you will have fully healed fighters and could launch them faster.
and last if they decide to make them take up 2 weapon slots and give you know firepower then they should not fix the UI and leave it so if you have a swarm of fighters on one target he wount be able to simple hunt you down and ignore the fighters. Fighters should be their as a distraction since you cannot defend yourself.
Honestly i wouldn't mind losing 2 weapon slots and have 1 hangar bay added on that...
I don't understand your last point.
How can you forces someone to do that in game? You can't keep a player from targeting the carrier over the pets. That is a tactical decision...
I'd be fun to have up to 6 of those Karfi Frigates.
Also, It would be nice if the Karfi could have a Lt. Commander Eng BO slot to make it a little bit more viable in PvP
Aye, that would make it perfect.
Can ditch the commander sci slot for that np
Or make that station universal, THAT would be funneh...
LOL, should work very well for you, mine i have been hitting over 300 K damage each match and over 300K healing. Blues and greens, LG 5 plus need to respec was in Bops.
Sounds excellent. Though I ask, is it just a FAW carrier or did you also design in some anti-FAW concepts?
I'm still BG3 as I grind my SCI alt to LG (boy FAW makes that quick work in pve) and have not yet fielded her into PvP.
She (nuQlI' laH - Annoying TRIBBLE) hopefully will help against the FAWFED beamboats with an unusual , yet somewhat suicidal attack.:)