What is the point of any Carrier but the Raptor?

[Midnitewolf]

I just got into carrier gameplay and love it and knew going in that the Raptor was superior but I can't see one single reason to use a carrier from any other faction. I mean none can carry more then 40 fighter and they all only have about 10% of the firepower of the Raptor. It is kind of like comparing a Ronald Regan Class Super Carrier to an WWII carrier and even more astonishing is despite how much larger and more capable the Raptor is, it doesn't cost any more to build than any other faction carrier.

In any case, I was looking at the other factions Carriers because I wanted to add a "Light Carrier" to each of my battle groups to give then a more easy to manage fighter wing where the fighters could go and repair after engagements, however unless I am missing something I might as well just use a Raptor or hell, even a Monitor Aux Ship if I want to save money because even it looks to be a better carrier than most carriers and it has the added benefit of being able to repair Capital Ships as well.

Am I missing something?

[chew-ie]

The price. A Raptor with decent gear will cost you ~100 million credits, a Colossus is way cheaper and a good "starter carrier". As one has to buy fighters as well, not everybody has that kind of money.

Raptor is endgame material.

[Raptor34]

Just have them repair on the Raptor instead. Other carriers have 2 M pads, but only 2 so not really worth it.
What I'm more concerned with is why does the Tokyo have as many pads as the Raptor and yet only 40 S slots. Its annoying trying to build a Terran fleet and now needing multiple carriers. Though at least it seems to work out so far.

Edit: Where are you seeing they cost the same? A high preset ARG/PAR carrier costs 36-37 mil while just the chassis of a Raptor costs 45 mil.

[Imperial Good]

The other carriers are more tanky as they have more shield generators. They also offer a better M launch ratio than the Raptor which has only 1 M landing pad as opposed to the Colossus's 4. For purely carrier operations any of the others work fine. Only advantage Raptor has is that it can operating as a heavy destroyer of sorts as far as damage goes.

What I'm more concerned with is why does the Tokyo have as many pads as the Raptor and yet only 40 S slots. Its annoying trying to build a Terran fleet and now needing multiple carriers. Though at least it seems to work out so far.

This allows for extremely fast launch and landing speeds due to the low queue depth. The Raptor was useless as a M carrier as it would take many minutes to undock all the M ships in hold.

[Raptor34]

The other carriers are more tanky as they have more shield generators. They also offer a better M launch ratio than the Raptor which has only 1 M landing pad as opposed to the Colossus's 4. For purely carrier operations any of the others work fine. Only advantage Raptor has is that it can operating as a heavy destroyer of sorts as far as damage goes.

What I'm more concerned with is why does the Tokyo have as many pads as the Raptor and yet only 40 S slots. Its annoying trying to build a Terran fleet and now needing multiple carriers. Though at least it seems to work out so far.

This allows for extremely fast launch and landing speeds due to the low queue depth. The Raptor was useless as a M carrier as it would take many minutes to undock all the M ships in hold.

Oh, been awhile since I've really used the others, so 4 M pads eh, that at least makes it usable. Though I've never really had good experiences with M ships. In hindsight perhaps a Colossus would have been better for that Boson Dragon wing I was eyeing.
Also regarding fast launch landing, are you talking about S ships instead? Because I've never found it taking too long to launch my S fighters.

[jlehtone]

I just got into carrier gameplay and love it and knew going in that the Raptor was superior but I can't see one single reason to use a carrier from any other faction.

Raptor is Split. Split are aliens. We need no such help. We are the best of the best. We can win with our own ships. Wooden Ships and Iron Men.

As the Split say: For honour!

[Redwyrm]

The other carriers are more tanky as they have more shield generators. They also offer a better M launch ratio than the Raptor which has only 1 M landing pad as opposed to the Colossus's 4. For purely carrier operations any of the others work fine. Only advantage Raptor has is that it can operating as a heavy destroyer of sorts as far as damage goes.

What Raptor lack in shield, it's vastly compensate in hull strength.
Plus, who cares about weak shield, when you have 108 turrets, that will shred even Xenon I, before it will have a chance wear down your shield?

[Zaemar2017]

Colossus and Zeus are both excellent ships. If anything I'm shying away from Raptors, partly because they're ridiculously OP.

[Raptor34]

The other carriers are more tanky as they have more shield generators. They also offer a better M launch ratio than the Raptor which has only 1 M landing pad as opposed to the Colossus's 4. For purely carrier operations any of the others work fine. Only advantage Raptor has is that it can operating as a heavy destroyer of sorts as far as damage goes.

What Raptor lack in shield, it's vastly compensate in hull strength.
Plus, who cares about weak shield, when you have 108 turrets, that will shred even Xenon I, before it will have a chance wear down your shield?

Also with full/high level service crew which is easy to get btw, those hull will regen pretty well. Same for Rattlesnakes actually. So much for fragile Split ships, they can be really tanky.

[Imperial Good]

Also regarding fast launch landing, are you talking about S ships instead? Because I've never found it taking too long to launch my S fighters.

Depths still have an effect on launching and landing them. Raptor does take quite some time to deploy all 100 docked S ships.

Plus, who cares about weak shield, when you have 108 turrets, that will shred even Xenon I, before it will have a chance wear down your shield?

Unfortunately that is not the case. The Xenon I has a ridiculous number of L turrets, which comprise up most of its 16+ times the DPS of the Raptor due to being the highest DPS L turrets in the game. Combined with the I having more hull and many times the shield it usually vaporises the Raptor (from full toughness) without even its shield falling to half.

The exception is if the Raptor uses Flak turrets. In this case it might win purely due to the double dipping damage they deal combined with their splash damage destroying surface elements while the impact behaviour of XEN L turrets makes them less suited to strip surface elements in return. Still ordering an AI controlled Raptor to attack an I usually results in the Raptor being destroyed and I not even losing its shield.

Raptor is pretty much 1 shotted by the Asguard XL battery due to its lack of toughness.

[BlackRain]

Also regarding fast launch landing, are you talking about S ships instead? Because I've never found it taking too long to launch my S fighters.

Depths still have an effect on launching and landing them. Raptor does take quite some time to deploy all 100 docked S ships.

Plus, who cares about weak shield, when you have 108 turrets, that will shred even Xenon I, before it will have a chance wear down your shield?

Unfortunately that is not the case. The Xenon I has a ridiculous number of L turrets, which comprise up most of its 16+ times the DPS of the Raptor due to being the highest DPS L turrets in the game. Combined with the I having more hull and many times the shield it usually vaporises the Raptor (from full toughness) without even its shield falling to half.

The exception is if the Raptor uses Flak turrets. In this case it might win purely due to the double dipping damage they deal combined with their splash damage destroying surface elements while the impact behaviour of XEN L turrets makes them less suited to strip surface elements in return. Still ordering an AI controlled Raptor to attack an I usually results in the Raptor being destroyed and I not even losing its shield.

Raptor is pretty much 1 shotted by the Asguard XL battery due to its lack of toughness.

Yeah I really don't understand how anyone can say the Raptor can defeat an I, unless it is player driven and you are kiting it while having plasma bolts fire at it from out of its range. The Xenon L plasma turrets are ridiculously powerful. If a raptor comes into range of its guns, it is getting shredded along with pretty much everything else.

[Redwyrm]

Unfortunately that is not the case. The Xenon I has a ridiculous number of L turrets, which comprise up most of its 16+ times the DPS of the Raptor due to being the highest DPS L turrets in the game. Combined with the I having more hull and many times the shield it usually vaporises the Raptor (from full toughness) without even its shield falling to half.

That's clearly not true. Back in Split Vendetta days my Raptor shredded over 10 Xenon I, when i was doing Great Xenon Purge...
Practically alone... and generally because i wanted Xenon I would aggro on Raptor, as unlike other support, Raptor could handle it.

[BlackRain]

Unfortunately that is not the case. The Xenon I has a ridiculous number of L turrets, which comprise up most of its 16+ times the DPS of the Raptor due to being the highest DPS L turrets in the game. Combined with the I having more hull and many times the shield it usually vaporises the Raptor (from full toughness) without even its shield falling to half.

That's clearly not true. Back in Split Vendetta days my Raptor shredded over 10 Xenon I, when i was doing Great Xenon Purge...
Practically alone... and generally because i wanted Xenon I would aggro on Raptor, as unlike other support, Raptor could handle it.

The raptor is not tanking the Xenon I turrets. I can understand if you are continuously moving out of range with the greater speed. A raptor is not flying near an I and surviving.

[Redwyrm]

Yeah I really don't understand how anyone can say the Raptor can defeat an I, unless it is player driven and you are kiting it while having plasma bolts fire at it from out of its range. The Xenon L plasma turrets are ridiculously powerful. If a raptor comes into range of its guns, it is getting shredded along with pretty much everything else.

Kitting? Quite opposite actually. Travel speed at Xenon I. Due to additional speed that will give you extra seconds of Raptor been able to fire at Xenon I, and Xenon I not been able to fire back. And i think you underestimate HOW much firepower 108 plasma turrets can provide... Spoiler 17,00DPS roughly. In comparison, Asgard can achieve 20,000 sustained DPS with his main XL battery.

[Redwyrm]

The raptor is not tanking the Xenon I turrets. I can understand if you are continuously moving out of range with the greater speed. A raptor is not flying near an I and surviving.

Raptor is not tanking neither by shield, nor even by hull, Raptor is tanking by DPS. Xenon I can't hurt raptor if it can't live longer than 20 seconds... and no, i do not overestimate. It takes under 20 seconds to nuke Xenon I with Raptor.

[Zaemar2017]

Still ordering an AI controlled Raptor to attack an I usually results in the Raptor being destroyed and I not even losing its shield.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. You do actually have fighters on the Raptor? The I turrets are almost totally useless against so much firepower.

[BlackRain]

Still ordering an AI controlled Raptor to attack an I usually results in the Raptor being destroyed and I not even losing its shield.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. You do actually have fighters on the Raptor? The I turrets are almost totally useless against so much firepower.

I am pretty sure he was talking about a single Raptor, not including fighters

[BlackRain]

Yeah I really don't understand how anyone can say the Raptor can defeat an I, unless it is player driven and you are kiting it while having plasma bolts fire at it from out of its range. The Xenon L plasma turrets are ridiculously powerful. If a raptor comes into range of its guns, it is getting shredded along with pretty much everything else.

Kitting? Quite opposite actually. Travel speed at Xenon I. Due to additional speed that will give you extra seconds of Raptor been able to fire at Xenon I, and Xenon I not been able to fire back. And i think you underestimate HOW much firepower 108 plasma turrets can provide... Spoiler 17,00DPS roughly. In comparison, Asgard can achieve 20,000 sustained DPS with his main XL battery.

You are still talking about what only the player can do. I don't see it happening without your direct control.

[Zaemar2017]

Still ordering an AI controlled Raptor to attack an I usually results in the Raptor being destroyed and I not even losing its shield.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. You do actually have fighters on the Raptor? The I turrets are almost totally useless against so much firepower.

I am pretty sure he was talking about a single Raptor, not including fighters

Sending a carrier in without fighters defeats the object of having one in the first place!

[BlackRain]

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. You do actually have fighters on the Raptor? The I turrets are almost totally useless against so much firepower.

I am pretty sure he was talking about a single Raptor, not including fighters

Sending a carrier in without fighters defeats the object of having one in the first place!

That may be true, but nonetheless that isn't what we were arguing lol.