Your Ideas to make Carriers useful

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

BTW I haven't notice the fast launch from the carrier but OOS they do seem to pop out fast. But GCU Grey says his fighters don't scramble out when flying in bad territory UNTIL he gives the order? Are you just having them docked and not in a wing under the carrier? My fighters have a bad record of following the wing order (if the wing order code actually work) so thats why I'm asking. I do not want to explicitly tell all the fighters all the time. Rather give the commander an order and he'll do his job and the fighters gets order from him...automation.

Yes, my fighters are not organised in wings under their carriers. Frequently give carriers & fighters different orders (e.g. carrier: 'fly to', fighters: 'attack'). It's really not all that much more complicated to shift-select a bunch of fighters from the ship list & give them orders directly, than it is to give orders to a carrier & has the advantage that my carriers stays safe behind the lines (rather than joining the attack along with their fighters). As for automation, my fighters do have a bit of that - very fond of the 'dock & wait' behaviour so my fighters automatically return to their carriers after completing other orders.

Yes I know that shift-select all, use it myself. BUT that doesn't mean I think it is a good way. I am hoping for a better wing functionality (aka a working code). My vision of the Carrier wing command structure would be akin to :
Having serveral wings of fighters with different loadout of guns and different orders, big guns go big ships, small accurate guns go small ships and protect carrier. Bomber wings that have escorts that protect the bomber NOT the carrier. So when I tell the carrier to patrol a sector or stand ground at a point these wings would activate accordingly. So if a batch of small fighters comes into "view" the Carrier scrambles the fighters with light guns, shoot the victims and return. If big baddies it launches heavy fighters and bomber + bomber escorts.

Fighters can serve as quite effective bombers themselves and deploy faster from the current available range of carriers, thus while your desired wing arrangements may be a seemingly good idea the general principle is flawed given how the vanilla game is balanced. M-size corvettes/bombers/corvettes are better treated separately from S-size fighters IMO where static wing organisations as part of a Carrier complement are concerned.

Most of the time for my carriers, I just leave assigned fighters as direct subordinates and leave the carrier captain to decide how to organise them - this is essentially how things worked in X3 with fighter wings that were assigned a particular carrier as a home base. If I feel there is a good reason to intervene with the automatic behaviours then I issue direct manual orders while keeping them assigned to the relevant carrier.

Where my "personal" destroyers are concerned, I treat fighters like mini task forces and have them normally organised as groups of 5 with direct standing manual orders of dock and wait. The destroyer based fighter wings are direct subordinates primarily for organisational reasons. If left to their devices, they would probably rarely (if ever) dock.

Yes - the current AI in X4 is less than perfect but TBH the AI in the X-games as a whole has rarely (if ever) been particularly good. There are some things that Egosoft should definitely resolve wrt X4 (with the key one being resolving certain issues with particular subordinate behaviours) but in the main the current AI does work ok even if it can be glitchy at times and has its limits.

The current wing code does actually work reasonably well all things considered but that is not to say it could not be improved. However, when considering such matters it is worth keeping in mind how things are balanced combat wise and adapt to it rather than trying to shoe-horn personal pre-conceptions about how we each think things should work and be balanced overall.

[dholmstr]

Yes, my fighters are not organised in wings under their carriers. Frequently give carriers & fighters different orders (e.g. carrier: 'fly to', fighters: 'attack'). It's really not all that much more complicated to shift-select a bunch of fighters from the ship list & give them orders directly, than it is to give orders to a carrier & has the advantage that my carriers stays safe behind the lines (rather than joining the attack along with their fighters). As for automation, my fighters do have a bit of that - very fond of the 'dock & wait' behaviour so my fighters automatically return to their carriers after completing other orders.

Yes I know that shift-select all, use it myself. BUT that doesn't mean I think it is a good way. I am hoping for a better wing functionality (aka a working code). My vision of the Carrier wing command structure would be akin to :
Having serveral wings of fighters with different loadout of guns and different orders, big guns go big ships, small accurate guns go small ships and protect carrier. Bomber wings that have escorts that protect the bomber NOT the carrier. So when I tell the carrier to patrol a sector or stand ground at a point these wings would activate accordingly. So if a batch of small fighters comes into "view" the Carrier scrambles the fighters with light guns, shoot the victims and return. If big baddies it launches heavy fighters and bomber + bomber escorts.

Fighters can serve as quite effective bombers themselves and deploy faster from the current available range of carriers, thus while your desired wing arrangements may be a seemingly good idea the general principle is flawed given how the vanilla game is balanced. M-size corvettes/bombers/corvettes are better treated separately from S-size fighters IMO where static wing organisations as part of a Carrier complement are concerned.

Most of the time for my carriers, I just leave assigned fighters as direct subordinates and leave the carrier captain to decide how to organise them - this is essentially how things worked in X3 with fighter wings that were assigned a particular carrier as a home base. If I feel there is a good reason to intervene with the automatic behaviours then I issue direct manual orders while keeping them assigned to the relevant carrier.

Where my "personal" destroyers are concerned, I treat fighters like mini task forces and have them normally organised as groups of 5 with direct standing manual orders of dock and wait. The destroyer based fighter wings are direct subordinates primarily for organisational reasons. If left to their devices, they would probably rarely (if ever) dock.

Yes - the current AI in X4 is less than perfect but TBH the AI in the X-games as a whole has rarely (if ever) been particularly good. There are some things that Egosoft should definitely resolve wrt X4 (with the key one being resolving certain issues with particular subordinate behaviours) but in the main the current AI does work ok even if it can be glitchy at times and has its limits.

The current wing code does actually work reasonably well all things considered but that is not to say it could not be improved. However, when considering such matters it is worth keeping in mind how things are balanced combat wise and adapt to it rather than trying to shoe-horn personal pre-conceptions about how we each think things should work and be balanced overall.

Again you go for the answer "because the vanilla is like this now you argument is flawed". Just because fighters works as bombers, maybe even better than the bombers themself, doesn't mean my vision is flawed or anything. Why can't we strive for something else? Just because you use the ships however you see fit, doesn't mean it must stay as such. Why is your style more important than all the rest? How do you know what Egosoft have in mind and whatever the balance they are seeking? An improvement to AI is an improvement, no matter what the balance is. You like to give direct order, fine you play that style. That is your choice, and that choice would still work even if we get better AI/automation. I am still playing the game so adapting is not the problem. Shoe-horning personal preconeptions right back at you, how we each think things should work.

[spankahontis]

As pointed out - ALL ships already have self-repair courtesy of service crew, it is buggy in places but there are general issues with scripts not always running as they should which is not specific to this.

Your argument on the whole is totally fallacious in nature - fighters in X4 do not launch 5-10minutes apart, they launch in a matter of seconds on proper carriers. On destroyers, things are far slower in deployment and recovery especially when you consider the difference between an Odysseus and a Zeus or Colossus.

From an immersive standpoint, that's just stupid, given most the damage to a fighter would be on the outside.
How are the Service Crew meant to reach to repair the Fighter in a combat situation? Surf???
Repairing a damaged fighter to full or near full capacity with Repair drones is just unrealistic given the size of the crew, the limited resources and in the middle of a battle.

Having repair crews on standby in a Carrier where the Fighters have a safe space to land, protected by the Carriers hull/shields while a much larger Crew on the Carrier can get to work getting the fighter up and ready to get back out and fight is a more realistic process.
Having Fighters able to repair themselves to full/or near is just an immersion killer.

I'm not going to address the rest of your point as i'm done repeating myself, what's been said has been said.

Nope - not true for the X-Series on the whole, Egosoft not having main race battleships would actually be in-keeping with X-Universe lore in the main. The main races counter the battleship threats of the Kha'ak and Xenon without their own Battleships.

The Terrans had a notional one-off Battleship-like craft, the Valhalla but outside of mods it was not really obtainable as I recall.

The general assertion that main-race/player-owned Battleships are inevitable for an X-series game is ignoring the precedent set by existing X-Universe lore - it does not matter what "other games" may do or not do.

If that's the case then why did Egosoft break lore and make a ton of Battleships for X3 like the Titan and in Rebirth the Taranis, Succelus and the Fulmekron? Even make Super-sized versions in AP's Shady Business Patch to combat the Xenon I and the Terran's Valhalla?

Even if what you say is true? I don't think Egosoft really care about maintaining the lore 100%. Chances are they are going to follow the X3/Rebirth route and bend the rules, bringing in some of those Battleships or new designs.
I know they decommissioned the Titan in X4, doesn't mean they wont make a new version.
So like I said, Battleships sell and Egosoft would be fools to ignore that, lore always comes second place, sad but true.

Ignore the trend that all Space Sims have Battleships, but the trend is still there whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Karmaticdamage]

The AI would need to be overhauled before any larger ships could be put in the game imo. Watch a xenon I try to maneuver and fight IS and you'll see what I mean. I think a lot of people aren't considering equipment mods. You can mod a zeus to move around at over 400 m/s and 8000 m/s travel drive. I can get an ody to fly like a nemesis with the proper mods. Egosoft probably balanced these ships with this in mind as exceptional modded ships are vastly superior to their stock counterparts.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

You have yet to actually make an argument that has not already been debunked...

You say all space sims have battleships but that is demonstrably false as has already been pointed out several times already. There is no such trend, if you believe otherwise I suggest you present evidence that has not already been debunked.

The Titan/Taranis/Succelous/Fulmekron were Destroyers and NOT Battleships - the balance of things between X-Rebirth, X2, X3 and X4 is on the most part totally different from each other. Just because a ship in a given game "appears" to have characteristics of what might be called a Battleship in the real world (e.g. lots of guns and armour) does not make them Battleships in the context of the game itself. Context is everything in such matters.

On the whole - even when Battleships are implemented in games like the X-series it is very rare for players to be able to own/control/fly them without mods.

As for the own ship repair aspect, the immersion argument is generally moot there are many things in the X-series that require the suspension of assumptions based on current real-world knowledge. There are many different ways that service crew could theoretically support external repairs without repair drones and FTR repair drones are not even required for larger ship own-ship repairs even for things that are notionally only accessible from outside. The own ship repair mechanic may be a bit gamey in some ways but it exists and is part of the vanilla mechanics. Personally, I think it is a feature that should not be nerfed or removed either.

Faster repair and rearm/refit while on the move is seemingly slated to be a feature of the forthcoming mobile equipment docks, it would make no sense what so ever to make carriers in X4 also have this feature. The Carriers in X4 already have their niche demarked in essence (fast deployment of internalised S-size vessels) and I would not expect the forthcoming mobile equipment docks to encroach on that either.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

Again you go for the answer "because the vanilla is like this now you argument is flawed". Just because fighters works as bombers, maybe even better than the bombers themself, doesn't mean my vision is flawed or anything. Why can't we strive for something else? Just because you use the ships however you see fit, doesn't mean it must stay as such. Why is your style more important than all the rest? How do you know what Egosoft have in mind and whatever the balance they are seeking? An improvement to AI is an improvement, no matter what the balance is. You like to give direct order, fine you play that style. That is your choice, and that choice would still work even if we get better AI/automation. I am still playing the game so adapting is not the problem. Shoe-horning personal preconeptions right back at you, how we each think things should work.

My point is more about the practicality of what your approach is based on ALL the facts at hand. It has little or nothing to do with my personal preferences/preconceptions and has everything to do with how the game itself has been actually been designed and balanced based on empirical evidence.

In the real world, fighters are typically substantially faster and more agile than their bomber counterparts and bombers in general are not really able to defend themselves. In X4 on the other hand, bombers/corvettes/frigates are relatively speaking far more capable than their fighter counterparts. In legacy X-series terms, all three can be considered tantamount to the M6 range of vessels from X2 but in an X4 frame of reference - the mapping is not perfect due to various other balance differences but that does not make it any less true.

X4 combat balance is not a perfect/identical replication of the balance we had with X2 but it does map very closely none the less. In X2, the general balance equivalent of bombers/corvettes/frigates could ALL typically dock at least one fighter in X2 but could not dock everywhere. In X4, only the frigates can dock a single fighter but they can also dock everywhere where trade ships can dock too. In X2, all trade ships and fighters could dock at the same locations, but in X4 this has been implemented differently and things are more mixed up in that area. Then there is capability v. purchase cost which is wildly different from X2 with the minimums and maximums in X4 much less spread out on the whole. There are other differences/similarities that I could highlight but the points I have highlighted thus far should be enough to illustrate the point.

As I have pointed out - this is not about personal preconceptions on my part but the actual reality of the way things are implemented. Should that implementation be changed to meet the expectations of some - IMO no. I know some would have prefered an overall combat balance closer to the X3 games or X-Rebirth but personally I like the overall balance of things as it stands. To expect Egosoft to alter the vanilla balance as some seem to think they should is IMO fundamentally wrong on many levels. There are some things Egosoft should perhaps alter to make things more consistent with-in the current general approach but that is another matter entirely.

[dholmstr]

...

Again you go for the answer "because the vanilla is like this now you argument is flawed". Just because fighters works as bombers, maybe even better than the bombers themself, doesn't mean my vision is flawed or anything. Why can't we strive for something else? Just because you use the ships however you see fit, doesn't mean it must stay as such. Why is your style more important than all the rest? How do you know what Egosoft have in mind and whatever the balance they are seeking? An improvement to AI is an improvement, no matter what the balance is. You like to give direct order, fine you play that style. That is your choice, and that choice would still work even if we get better AI/automation. I am still playing the game so adapting is not the problem. Shoe-horning personal preconeptions right back at you, how we each think things should work.

My point is more about the practicality of what your approach is based on ALL the facts at hand. It has little or nothing to do with my personal preferences/preconceptions and has everything to do with how the game itself has been actually been designed and balanced based on empirical evidence.

In the real world, fighters are typically substantially faster and more agile than their bomber counterparts and bombers in general are not really able to defend themselves. In X4 on the other hand, bombers/corvettes/frigates are relatively speaking far more capable than their fighter counterparts. In legacy X-series terms, all three can be considered tantamount to the M6 range of vessels from X2 but in an X4 frame of reference - the mapping is not perfect due to various other balance differences but that does not make it any less true.

X4 combat balance is not a perfect/identical replication of the balance we had with X2 but it does map very closely none the less. In X2, the general balance equivalent of bombers/corvettes/frigates could ALL typically dock at least one fighter in X2 but could not dock everywhere. In X4, only the frigates can dock a single fighter but they can also dock everywhere where trade ships can dock too. In X2, all trade ships and fighters could dock at the same locations, but in X4 this has been implemented differently and things are more mixed up in that area. Then there is capability v. purchase cost which is wildly different from X2 with the minimums and maximums in X4 much less spread out on the whole. There are other differences/similarities that I could highlight but the points I have highlighted thus far should be enough to illustrate the point.

As I have pointed out - this is not about personal preconceptions on my part but the actual reality of the way things are implemented. Should that implementation be changed to meet the expectations of some - IMO no. I know some would have prefered an overall combat balance closer to the X3 games or X-Rebirth but personally I like the overall balance of things as it stands. To expect Egosoft to alter the vanilla balance as some seem to think they should is IMO fundamentally wrong on many levels. There are some things Egosoft should perhaps alter to make things more consistent with-in the current general approach but that is another matter entirely.

And I don't want to bash you, because you argue well to get others to actually argue you back with with more details. BUT you say it is not about presonal preconceptions and yet the same time YOU think that no changes should be made? I don't want X3 or XR balance/style, haven't really tought about it that way. To expect Egosoft to -keep- the status quo on vanilla balance as some seem to the think they should is IMO fundamently wrong on many levels.
I also notice many refering to IRL bomber/fighters etc. While tactics might bee used as a template base for sci-fi space game, it really isn't the same now is it?
BTW the line "My point is more about the practicality of what your approach is based on ALL the facts at hand." Based on what all facts?

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

you say it is not about presonal preconceptions and yet the same time YOU think that no changes should be made?

Hyperbole - not no changes, just not the changes some are pushing for.

I don't want X3 or XR balance/style, haven't really tought about it that way.

There have been overarching complaints about how X4 is balanced overall and the reference point for said complaints are typically X3/XR. If it is not X3/XR used as a reference point then it is some other game. The simple fact of the matter is that X4 is it's own game in it's own right and IMO how other games may or may not relate to the vanilla balance of X4 is on the most part moot. Particular features do not sit in isolation and adding feature X to existing game asset Y can require a complete revisit of game balance overall since such things can introduce inconsistencies in the overall balance.

To expect Egosoft to -keep- the status quo on vanilla balance as some seem to the think they should is IMO fundamently wrong on many levels.

False - ultimately, if people in general are unhappy with the vanilla experience from balance/scripting/content perspectives (exc. actual bugs) then that is what community developed mods are for.

I am sick to death of entitled gamers in general campaigning in open gaming forums to mutate the overall vanilla balance of game A to be more like game B (regardless of whether they are in the same game series or not), such behaviours amongst the gaming community in general have resulted in too many games being ruined already. Where X4 and the current specific matter at hand is concerned, Egosoft have on the whole balanced things fairly and reasonably overall - sure there are some bugs and other aspects that should be addressed BUT the relative capabilities and limitations of Carriers/Destroyers is not one of them.

I also notice many refering to IRL bomber/fighters etc. While tactics might bee used as a template base for sci-fi space game, it really isn't the same now is it?

That is pretty much my point - yet those arguing for certain things seem to be almost habitually ignoring that and still pushing ideas that really are ignoring the overriding context of X4.

BTW the line "My point is more about the practicality of what your approach is based on ALL the facts at hand." Based on what all facts?

This has been spelled out already - the actual context of overall vanilla X4 balance and ship capabilities.

When considering bombers/corvettes/frigates for example, these vessels are on the whole more than capable of defending themselves. Sure they are not invulnerable but in the main due to overall game balance they are better operating alone or in groups rather than have fighters in tow. Especially in the context of carrier wings, the relative carrier launch times and various balancing factors mean that the S-sized combat ships would be better operating independently from but in support of the larger (carrier based) M-sized combat ships and the M-sized combat ships would be better operating without a non-Drone S-size contingent in tow.

This assessment has nothing to do with any personal preconceptions, and everything to do with the actual game balance which I personally feel should remain largely as-is. There are some changes that would make sense from the perspective of internal game balance/lore consistency but Carriers in their current form are already useful and do not need any changes that directly/exclusively relate to them. If anyone truly feels otherwise, then that is where the community developed mods fit in.

[dholmstr]

...

you say it is not about presonal preconceptions and yet the same time YOU think that no changes should be made?

Hyperbole - not no changes, just not the changes some are pushing for.

I don't want X3 or XR balance/style, haven't really tought about it that way.

There have been overarching complaints about how X4 is balanced overall and the reference point for said complaints are typically X3/XR. If it is not X3/XR used as a reference point then it is some other game. The simple fact of the matter is that X4 is it's own game in it's own right and IMO how other games may or may not relate to the vanilla balance of X4 is on the most part moot. Particular features do not sit in isolation and adding feature X to existing game asset Y can require a complete revisit of game balance overall since such things can introduce inconsistencies in the overall balance.

To expect Egosoft to -keep- the status quo on vanilla balance as some seem to the think they should is IMO fundamently wrong on many levels.

False - ultimately, if people in general are unhappy with the vanilla experience from balance/scripting/content perspectives (exc. actual bugs) then that is what community developed mods are for.

I am sick to death of entitled gamers in general campaigning in open gaming forums to mutate the overall vanilla balance of game A to be more like game B (regardless of whether they are in the same game series or not), such behaviours amongst the gaming community in general have resulted in too many games being ruined already. Where X4 and the current specific matter at hand is concerned, Egosoft have on the whole balanced things fairly and reasonably overall - sure there are some bugs and other aspects that should be addressed BUT the relative capabilities and limitations of Carriers/Destroyers is not one of them.

I also notice many refering to IRL bomber/fighters etc. While tactics might bee used as a template base for sci-fi space game, it really isn't the same now is it?

That is pretty much my point - yet those arguing for certain things seem to be almost habitually ignoring that and still pushing ideas that really are ignoring the overriding context of X4.

BTW the line "My point is more about the practicality of what your approach is based on ALL the facts at hand." Based on what all facts?

This has been spelled out already - the actual context of overall vanilla X4 balance and ship capabilities.

When considering bombers/corvettes/frigates for example, these vessels are on the whole more than capable of defending themselves. Sure they are not invulnerable but in the main due to overall game balance they are better operating alone or in groups rather than have fighters in tow. Especially in the context of carrier wings, the relative carrier launch times and various balancing factors mean that the S-sized combat ships would be better operating independently from but in support of the larger (carrier based) M-sized combat ships and the M-sized combat ships would be better operating without a non-Drone S-size contingent in tow.

This assessment has nothing to do with any personal preconceptions, and everything to do with the actual game balance which I personally feel should remain largely as-is. There are some changes that would make sense from the perspective of internal game balance/lore consistency but Carriers in their current form are already useful and do not need any changes that directly/exclusively relate to them. If anyone truly feels otherwise, then that is where the community developed mods fit in.

Hyperbole as it may seem, this discussion was about IDEAS for carrier. No one is pushing on Egosoft for anything. Wishing for something isn't wrong or false, Egosoft chooses what to do.
So you think Egosoft have the balanced thing just right as of now? How the hell do you know that is EXACTLY what Egosoft wants? My statment about "expect Egosoft to keep the status quo" has nothing about what players want/ask/wishes for, nor is it false. How can YOU know whatever Egosoft wants to do?
Considering bombers defendign themself, sure they can as of this moment in time. IS that the course Egosoft wants to continue? "This assessment has nothing to do with any personal preconceptions, and everything to do with the actual game balance which I personally feel should remain largely as-is" IS a personal view of what the game would be for you in the future. You have the right to have that wish. I know how the ships are right now in relations to each other, noone is disputing that (maybe some).
And if Egosoft gets a funny idea, either player asked or selfmade madnes, to change Carriers, you can also mod the ships back to older versions...right?

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Hyperbole as it may seem, this discussion was about IDEAS for carrier.

The whole concept of this thread is fundamentally flawed from the outset - the title itself speaks volumes.

The implication is that Carriers are useless/pointless which has been totally debunked and then there are the unfounded claims about player owned/main race destroyers being inevitable for the vanilla game and then following on from that subsequent unfounded claims that somehow player owned Battleships (if they were added as part of the game) would somehow make carriers redundant.

To go back to the OP

1) Add Carriers only special radars that give you long radar range (e.g. 120-180 km - this could be faction specific, so could have better radars).

Don't think this is necessary and could create other issues, radar range affects entity instancing and 40km is more than adequate. If individuals want greater radar visibility on the battlefield then that is what the satellite deployables are for.

2) Expand the drone storage to 40 (only 20 drones is tiny comparing to 10 drones of Destroyers) and add more types of combat drones:
- combat drone mk.2 (military grade drone - two weapons and enhanced hull point).
- combat drone mk.3 (experimental drone - two weapons, enhanced hull point and light shield).

I do not think it is necessary in the slightest.

3) Add ability to name your fleets/squads (this would be useful in general, but also for carrier in particular).

Not specific to carriers - already feasible after a fashion by naming your ships appropriately (I do this myself).

4) Add new carrier group menu which will display all squads assigned to the carrier (thus custom naming e.g. Destroyer escort, fighters squad, bomber squad, corvette squad):
- each squad can have set specific stance:
> Idle - ship sill docked inside the carrier (S and M) or stick pasivelly behind the carrier (L and XL size).
> Escort - ship stick close to the carrier and engage all hostiles that get near the carrier, L and XL size ship will try to be in front and sides of the carrier).
> Attack - these ships will be designated for carrier "launch attack" order.

Then when you assign you subordinates to the carrier you will be able to select carrier and when you click on the target you will have "launch attack" button - there you select which defined squads are to participate in attack.

Kind of already there in vanilla but again not specific to carriers. There are command & control aspects that legitimately could do with improvement but nothing that could be reasonably limited specifically to carriers.

5) Carriers should be able to repair and resupply docked S and M ships but less efficient than dedicated resupply ship - this is to reduce micromanagent on the carriers - who would like to mico several dozen fghters?

Disagree - if implemented though, it should not be specific to carriers and should apply to ALL ships that can carry other ships. A lot depends on how the Mobile Equipment Docks are implemented in 2.50.

6) Also the S/M storage should be increased from 40/10 to 60/15 so that we could make proper carrier based fighter/bomber groups.

Disagree - current storage on carriers is enough to make proper fighter/bomber groups as it is.

7) Possibly Destroyer S/M storage should be nerfed - they are significantly smalled than Carriers yet then are able to store almost as many ships?

Totally Disagree - the additional size of carriers provides faster launching of internalised S-ships, greater missile capacity, greater drone capacity, and greater cargo capacity already - amongst other vanilla gains.

Overall, this discussion is probably better suited to the scripting & modding section of this forum since there is little consideration for the simple fact that Carriers and Destroyers have been suitably balanced given their purchase prices and other factors. This is not the first thread in a gaming forum that can be summarised as pursuing an I want an I-WIN button type agenda with little or no regard for the actual game balance, and probably will not be the last.

To claim that carriers in X4 are not already useful is a total fallacy and lie at worst or at best totally misleading. There are some good points raised that have generic applicability but the rest is just dross and noise regarding notional balance changes. Carriers already have unique balancing aspects that justify their existence, they do not need anything extra that is specific to them.

[dholmstr]

Yes the OP headline is misleading, but again you can't say other peoples wishes for the future are flawed/total fallacy just because you think they are good as is and should stay as is, in your wishes. You can argue the are bad ideas but that has NOTHING to do with script/modding. Don't you worry about that, people will do mods just fine.

Claiming that Carrier are without use is wrong, they have uses. But maybe it should be something else. "Carriers already have unique balancing aspects that justify their existence, they do not need anything extra that is specific to them." well that is your wish......neither good or bad in my opinion, and certanly not flawed. That's Egosofts problem what to do with them.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

you can't say other peoples wishes for the future are flawed/total fallacy just because you think they are good as is and should stay as is, in your wishes.

ALOT would have to change to game balance as a whole for some of the ideas to be realised and make sense - such a level of change would be tantamount to writing a new game - ergo those ideas are fundamentally flawed in the context of a change to vanilla X4. It has nothing to do with my personal wishes, it is about reasonable expectations regarding product changes.

It is however a total fallacy that player owned/controlled Battleships are part of every space game (or even most space games). Regardless, there is also X-Universe lore to consider, which fails to set a precedent for it either. This again is nothing to do with personal wishes.

[mr.WHO]

Sorry Griffiths, but after your bizzare defence of (pre-2.0) broken turrets I can't take you seriously.
Looking bakward since page 2 of this topic half the content is just you spamming that you disagree on everything and see carriers to work as fine as pre-2.0 turrets.

Please limit youself, if you don't have anything new to add.
Your opinion was clear in first few pages, we don't need 10+ pages of you stating the same.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

Not spamming, just responding on topic. Just because I disagree with most of the ideas raised, or with some of the ideas being specifically limited to carriers does not make it spam.

As I have stated, some of the ideas proposed (e.g. command & control improvements) have universal applicability the rest is just bunk in the main.

[mr.WHO]

Then can you (and other people too) at least tune down on multi-quote or "quote within quote within quote" posts?

[Alan Phipps]

I'm locking this thread for a period while people calm down and stop being argumentative or personal. There is no need to read others' posts if you think them repetitive or irrelevant and there is definitely no need to make personal replies to them. The moderators will step in if posting is blatantly spam or off topic.

EDIT: Right I'm opening this thread again but it will be locked permanently if there is a reversion to personal arguments.

[vrod]

Present day carriers are useful, because they can haul the fighters a long distance that they cannot go. They can also repair and re-arm the fighters.

If X4 had no highways (like X3) and a hyperdrive only for ships with docks, then the carriers (and the Gorgon) would actually have some use. Pretty mych any medium, large, or X-large ship with a dock could have a hyperdrive. As cool as the Nemessis is, it would NOT have a hyperdrive.

Make “remove assignment” easier for a cluster of ships already docked.

Solves the issues.

[vrod]

Oops, one more thing.

Possible space anomalies may wreak havoc on smaller ship’s shield and possibly the hull too. The larger ship’s shields would protect the internal fighters from these anomalies.