[FEEDBACK]New Paranid Carrier can only carry 16 fighters? - WAI.

[Falcrack]

Its to see if it works. If it does we are very looking at other factions getting same changes in upcoming betas before 5.0 public hits. Hell maybe E class for every faction before then and they may test better with 2 fighters per slot, and perform better, and be the new meta after 5.0 who knows.

Hold your horse, Bernd said that they don't plan to do anything like that to other races anytime soon.
Only new ships for Paranids in 5.0.
No changes to existing ships as it might cause save-game compactibility issue.

What they should do is make the change for destroyers be save friendly. Reduce the amount of internal storage on existing destroyers, and if people have save games with too many fighters now in internal storage, the game does not crash, but simply allows them to undock but not dock new ships until below the new internal storage limit.

[Sassbarman]

When I saw the dev enter the conversation I honestly thought here comes the oops that’s a bug, and was rather shocked to hear it was intended. How is it possible to justify a carrier having half the fighter capacity of a destroyer or a transport ship for that matter. Defies logic.

[Pejot]

I like the change. This is fast carrier that can get in place before enemy reinforcements. It also fits paranid lore about their need of personal space.

[pesadelo]

When I saw the dev enter the conversation I honestly thought here comes the oops that’s a bug, and was rather shocked to hear it was intended. How is it possible to justify a carrier having half the fighter capacity of a destroyer or a transport ship for that matter. Defies logic.

Maybe those destros /transport ships will get their hangars nuked?

[capitalduty]

Nowadays a similar carrier vessel can have ready on deck up to 30 fighters, adding internal and external storage we are talking about 90 fighters capacity in total in year 2022. Yes X4 its different, but it's completely unrealistic to have no dedicated XL Carrier ships having more storage capacity and possibly in the timeline that x4 is based XL carrier should have huge amounts of fighters/drones ready to fight as technology should allow that in foreseeable future. Fast launching mechanic is good but is not enough compensation to have a huge slow carrier ship that cannot field more than 16 at a given time.

[mr.WHO]

Especially that the ship model is HUGE!
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 2726996450

If launch/recovery speed is a factor, then why not add more landing pads and launch tubes?

I can easily see space for 2x or maybe even 3x S landing pads on designated "landing" surface alone.

[Sassbarman]

I like the change. This is fast carrier that can get in place before enemy reinforcements. It also fits paranid lore about their need of personal space.

Fair enough, but I still think it’s a confounding and unnecessary change considering it’s already been stated that no other ships in the game have had their capacity’s changed.

[Pejot]

I like the change. This is fast carrier that can get in place before enemy reinforcements. It also fits paranid lore about their need of personal space.

Fair enough, but I still think it’s a confounding and unnecessary change considering it’s already been stated that no other ships in the game have had their capacity’s changed.

It was also mentioned that all of them will be changed and one of the possibilities is 2x docks for max number of ships.

[Alith-Ahnar]

I like the change. This is fast carrier that can get in place before enemy reinforcements. It also fits paranid lore about their need of personal space.

Fair enough, but I still think it’s a confounding and unnecessary change considering it’s already been stated that no other ships in the game have had their capacity’s changed.

It was also mentioned that all of them will be changed and one of the possibilities is 2x docks for max number of ships.

No.
There was no such statement.

All the Paranid Capital Ships would end up with a rework primarily driven because of Visual shortcomings compared to newer Ships.
Followed by this is expensive, and we are not sure if there will be a repeat with other Vanilla Faction Assets.

[AngryPerson]

The new ship moglials look great, but again have strange characteristics. 16 fighters are very few. For example, current aircraft carriers carry about 50 aircraft on board.

[Alm888]

Come on!
Paranid ships (ugly looks aside) are the most OP ships in the base game. Zeus has more turrets than Colossus and flies better. Odysseus as well has an advantage over Behemoth in: speed, number of L-turrets, range and M-dock capacity (not to mention HOP tends to cluster its destroyers in 7-8 unit groups, giving ANT with ita 3-ship "fleet" no chances).

I think Zeus/Odysseus nerf is in order. Paranid ships need some weak points (apart from cost that means little if a faction is well-supplied).

As far as my tastes go: Zeus 20 ships, Colossus 50 ships, Condor 70 ships.

[Alith-Ahnar]

Come on!
Paranid ships (ugly looks aside) are the most OP ships in the base game. Zeus has more turrets than Colossus and flies better. Odysseus as well has an advantage over Behemoth in: speed, number of L-turrets, range and M-dock capacity (not to mention HOP tends to cluster its destroyers in 7-8 unit groups, giving ANT with ita 3-ship "fleet" no chances).

I think Zeus/Odysseus nerf is in order. Paranid ships need some weak points (apart from cost that means little if a faction is well-supplied).

As far as my tastes go: Zeus 20 ships, Colossus 50 ships, Condor 70 ships.

Let us compare it to the Colossus everyone loves the Argnu.
So 2 M-Turrets are worth 24 Fighter, 1 XL-Shield Slot?

And I thought for a second the comment would not be in good faith.

[capitalduty]

Come on!
Paranid ships (ugly looks aside) are the most OP ships in the base game. Zeus has more turrets than Colossus and flies better. Odysseus as well has an advantage over Behemoth in: speed, number of L-turrets, range and M-dock capacity (not to mention HOP tends to cluster its destroyers in 7-8 unit groups, giving ANT with ita 3-ship "fleet" no chances).

I think Zeus/Odysseus nerf is in order. Paranid ships need some weak points (apart from cost that means little if a faction is well-supplied).

As far as my tastes go: Zeus 20 ships, Colossus 50 ships, Condor 70 ships.

I am ok that Paranid ships should have different stats that other factions, but carrier storage capacity been changed its against the whole purpose of having a XL carrier in the first place! Paranid carrier are only for faction Godrealm of the Paranid (PAR) and Duke's Buccaneers (BUC)...does not affect HOP that are enemies of ARG. Yes it could have lower capacity than others but definitely more than 25 for sure.

IMO More than a nerf for Paranid ships i would love to have upgrades to "fleet numbers in jobs file" for Argon/Ant when some relevant thresholds have been met during a long gameplay session. Right now it basically stays static and never can match up against HOP or Paranid superior technology and fleet composition even during late game. Only Player intervention can change the outcome of battles, this could be a lot more interesting especially during late game.

[Kajar]

I find this change rather curious indeed. It seemed weird that the majority of L and XL ships do have the same 40 S and 10 M capacity.
However, i found the capacity of little practical use.
I have currently 600 fighters which are supplied by just 2 Storck and 1 Colossus without any problems. They just fly in, dock, get repaired and launch again. There is no advantage to keeping things docked, if anything it is a disadvantage because your fighters take longer to react if they have to take off first.
It is an oddity in statistics, but has basically zero impact on my end of the gameplay.

Zeus E i might buy purely for the speed and its ability to relocate relatively quickly to supply the fighters.
As for the Oddy, the new one is the fastest destroyer in the market, but still the most squishy out of the bunch with the worst main guns. Only use for it i got is a fast response patrol vessel, because it is simply too soft to survive on the front lines.

[FatalKeks]

Seems like curious decision to me. Is it cheaper compared to other carriers?
What are the advantages that really justify such a low ship capacity?

However I think a rebalancing for ship capacity all over the board would be fine. But for only one ship it seems strange.

[Shepp]

Not a big fan of the change for the carrier. I'm fine with the destroyers capacity being lowered, and also think it wouldn't hurt to reduce fighter capacity on all of the destroyer class ships. Its just that carriers are well; supposed to be carriers. Even if they made the capacity around 30S/ 10M to offset the speed boost that would get that. As it sits right now Egosoft has gone to all of the work to create better looking ships and then actively worked to keep people from wanting to use them.

[-=SiR KiLLaLoT=-]

By carefully observing the real proportions of L and XL ships, I was able to create a list of S and M ships that could actually be positioned within the hypothetical space intended for them and the result was this.

Asgard: 6 M 12 S
Syn: 9 S
Osaka: 8 S
Tokyo: 2 M 36 S

Raptor: 4 M 126 S
Rattlesnake: 12 S

Colossus: 12 M 96 S
Behemoth: 20 S

Zeus: 16 M 80 S
Odysseus: 2 M 6 S

Condor: 3 M 12 S
Phoenix: 8 S

I think these numbers somehow make sense

I think Devs have to define ship numbers by the real size of things. Then then create an overall balance of speed/shields/turrets/hulls/firepower to test everything on.
If we continue in this way, much more complex new work will have to be done as future ships and races are introduced.
So having a real yardstick like that of size would make more sense in my opinion.

[j.harshaw]

I think Devs have to define ship numbers by the real size of things. Then then create an overall balance of speed/shields/turrets/hulls/firepower to test everything on.
If we continue in this way, much more complex new work will have to be done as future ships and races are introduced.
So having a real yardstick like that of size would make more sense in my opinion.

It is. Size and geometry are bases from which initial numbers are derived before factoring in modifiers. Necessary so that objects of a certain size move in very roughly the same manner and you don't see things like Xenon Is turning like fighters. This is why, for example, paranid ships tend to be fast, but a very large paranid ship won't be much faster, or at all faster, than say a very small teladi ship which uses the same engines. Size is not well communicated in the game, however.

[-=SiR KiLLaLoT=-]

I can imagine that you have made such a calculation, but I wonder where 30 M ships can be hidden inside a Raptor

The list above refers to a count of "rectangles" visually verified by entering the ship textures via the exterior view, and there are some combinations like that of the Raptor or Tokyo that don't make sense, at least for M ships.
Even if they had been disassembled, 30 Cobras (a random M-ship) would not be able to fit inside a Raptor ...

It's that kind of proportion that I can't understand.

[Mr_Cossack]

It's seem so odd that the Destroyer can take over 40 ships but this dedicated carrier can only carry 16? from a gameplay point of view i feel like it will just make it obsolete and no one except a.i will use it? unless i am missing something here?