Your Ideas to make Carriers useful

[mr.WHO]

L size freighters were very obviously nerfed right before release btw... which is a bit sad.

Take a look at the Argon L freighters and you will see a lot of the M turrets sitting on mod-slots for L turets ESPECIALLY ON ARGON...for some reason Egosoft chickened out completely and turned all those turrets into M turrets. I think one of the Argon freighters even has 3 or 4 L turrets holders still visible...that would have been a very unique concept to play around with if I'm very honest.

I hope they reconsider and just go ahead with that...because L-Freighters make some of the most interesting "Marauder" vessels with their huge storage and crewnumbers...the weaponry is just so shoddy that they are too awkward to use.

I think the same - I never thought that I say it but I miss Titurels from X-Rebirth - apart from them being more plentiful than cockroaches they were actually a decently designed pirate ships (armed combat freighters instead of military grade battleships).

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

6. After 100 hours of the game and default freighter reaction "run away" I'm yet to lost even single M-size freighter (and I nver use S-size freighters). Seem like using Carriers as armed freighters is quiete useless. Maybe if there would be some kind of trade route trough Xenon space like in X3? Unfortunately there os nothing like that in X4.

I did not respond to this earlier BUT I have lost a few M transport and S couriers to AI despite a default order of "run away".

The point in general is that Carriers *can* operate as armed Frieghters and depending on the state of your particular universe that can be significant. I am not saying it is a primary role of Carriers, I am saying it is a role that they can execute and do so quite effectively.

There may be no Xenon alleys but that does not make the potential usage of the carrier as an armed freighter useless or pointless in the slightest. It is of greatest significance when using a Carrier as a personal ship or to help top up a fully tasked trading fleet.

[GCU Grey Area]

Given Roger's emphatic defence of destroyers decided to give them another go this evening. Took my Colossus, Behemoth & Odysseus down to Company Regard & used that as a staging post for a series of tests. Far side of the gate, in Scale Plate Green, were a pair of Ks & around half a dozen assorted Xenon fighters already engaged with a Teladi Company Phoenix (armed primarily with Tracking launchers & a single M Dumbfire). Waited until the Phoenix was out of missiles then sent my ships in one by one (reloading between test runs, of course).

Behemoth (2x main guns, 2xL Plasma, 8xM Pulse) had by far the worst performance. Had difficulty defending itself from the fighters & during the fight the Ks completely repaired themselves from all damage inflicted by the Phoenix, even while under sporadic fire from my Behemoth. Occasionally it tried to use it's main guns but this proved largely ineffectual, indeed it's attempts to remain at range to use them tended to be counterproductive, severely restricting it's ability to use turrets effectively. Stopped the test run after 20 minutes when it was clear it was not going to be able to complete it.

Odysseus (2x main guns, 4xL Plasma, 12xM Pulse + 4xM Pulse on 1 docked Peregrine) did much better. Superior speed & manoeuverability (relative to Behemoth) meant it was much better able to use main guns & Plasma turrets - was not counting shots but would estimate it fired at least 3x as many main gun shots compared to Behemoth. Took a while but it was able to complete the test - killed both Ks. One issue which may be significant with respect to time to kill (for both Odysseus & Behemoth) seemed to be the manoeuvres they were doing in order to bring the main guns to bear, allowing a significant amount of time between attacks for the K to make repairs. It is perhaps notable that at one point, when Odysseus ran out of attack orders & switched to follow, it closed the distance & made much more effective use of it's turrets (to counter the problem of capitals destroying a subsystem & thinking they're done I always give my capital ship 3 attack orders, then a follow command, for each L/XL target on the field). Odysseus was also much more capable at defending itself against fighters. Seems the threshold for this is 6xM Pulse - Odysseus underside turrets (i.e. no assistance from the Peregrine) were observed to kill fighters, whereas the 4xM Pulse on the underside of Behemoth struggled at the same task.

Colossus (1xL Plasma, 4xM Plasma, 12xM Pulse + 12xM Pulse on 3 docked Peregrines) did the same job only quicker - flew to point blank range & fired every turret which had line of sight. No significant problems defending against the fighters. As a final test undocked the Peregrines & left them in Company Regard, to see how the Colossus would manage on it's own. Took a bit longer than previous test to dispatch the Ks, though still not as long as either of the destroyers. Think the primary difference comes down to engagement range - short range Colossus with a lot of M turrets really does seem to produce superior results to long range Odysseus or Behemoth with main guns & a few L turrets. Main issue Colossus had without it's Peregrines was notably worse performance against fighters attacking from above (upper turrets are 1xL Plasma, 4xM Plasma, 4xM Pulse). Further evidence IMO that 4xM Pulse is borderline for defending against fighters - the extra turrets on the Peregrines it normally carries definitely help in this regard.

[Warnoise]

How to make carriers useful:

-Add ability to repair (not rearm) docked fighters overtime (speed depends on number of repair drones and Engineer)
-Give them the ability to hold a very high number of drones and can launch them in big batches
-Give them the ability to use [Special drones] (like bombers, EMP, MK2 or MK3 drones) which require launch pods that take L turret places

Bam, we have useful Carriers that don't overlap too much with the upcoming resupply ships

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

I think you were missing the point by a VERY wide margin, your test was not a true test of Destroyer v Carrier *WITHOUT SUPPORT SHIPS* in both cases. your insistence on relying on surface docked ships to supplement your turrets in either case invalidates your attempt to counter the valid point that has been made about the relative solo ship capabilities of Destroyers and Carriers.

However, regardless of this I believe we are in agreement that on the whole Carriers are not as useless as some try to assert. We may disagree on matters of combat balance and some of the specific details of ship balance but those are really topics for discussion elsewhere.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

-Add ability to repair (not rearm) docked fighters overtime (speed depends on number of repair drones and Engineer)

If implemented, this arguably should be a feature of ALL player assets that has docking capabilities for other player assets. However, I do understand why Egosoft probably did not do this. Improving/fixing the current ship self-repair mechanics is probably the best we can hope for.

-Give them the ability to hold a very high number of drones and can launch them in big batches

The current drone capacity of carriers is already above that of other ships and arguably sufficient.

-Give them the ability to use [Special drones] (like bombers, EMP, MK2 or MK3 drones) which require launch pods that take L turret places

Don't agree with the need for this in the Vanilla game - interesting idea for a mod perhaps, though I do not agree such drones should be unique to Carriers nor necessarily tied to L turrets.

[Warnoise]

-Add ability to repair (not rearm) docked fighters overtime (speed depends on number of repair drones and Engineer)

If implemented, this arguably should be a feature of ALL player assets that has docking capabilities for other player assets. However, I do understand why Egosoft probably did not do this. Improving/fixing the current ship self-repair mechanics is probably the best we can hope for.

Should? And why is that?

If you want a carrier that does a carrier-y thing, then this should be unique to carriers to not make them into just flying parking lots with turrets.

The current drone capacity of carriers is already above that of other ships and arguably sufficient.

And? 20 drones is not enough, it doesn't suit the "carrier" class and its price. Considering how they get dropped like flies in combat, it should carry 40~50

It should dispatch in mass of 10 to swarm enemy.

Don't agree with the need for this in the Vanilla game - interesting idea for a mod perhaps, though I do not agree such drones should be unique to Carriers nor necessarily tied to L turrets.

I believe this idea adds uniqueness to the carrier class (which X-foundations lacks at the moment). Specialized drones can bring more versatility and a new layer of usefulness to the carrier class. The fact they can be modded in, means that it shouldn't be difficult for the devs to implement them in Vanilla (of course using their experience to balance them and correctly implement them)

I thought about them taking L turrets spots for balance purpose and also for versatility. You want a battleship? (more firepower, less specialized drones) or a full on drone carrier (can carry specialized drones, but needs protection)

[GCU Grey Area]

I think you were missing the point by a VERY wide margin, your test was not a true test of Destroyer v Carrier *WITHOUT SUPPORT SHIPS* in both cases. your insistence on relying on surface docked ships to supplement your turrets in either case invalidates your attempt to counter the valid point that has been made about the relative solo ship capabilities of Destroyers and Carriers.

The tests were primarily for my own benefit, to re-assess relative combat strength of the 3 ships & see if I'd overlooked something in previous tests of the destroyers. Countering points in this discussion was very much a secondary consideration, much more important for my own purposes to setup the ships in the configurations I'd use in practice. Just thought other people might also find results interesting so perhaps worth taking the time to make such a lengthy post. Wanted to give Odysseus the best possible chance of impressing me, hence the docked Peregrine. It did, to an extent, however in the final test Colossus without docked ships still outperformed it in an anti-capital role. Convinced the flightpath Odysseus was following to bring it's main guns to bear actually reduced it's effective overall DPS, compared to simply flying in close to make full use of it's turrets (i.e. sustained turret fire > sporadic use of main guns).

However, regardless of this I believe we are in agreement that on the whole Carriers are not as useless as some try to assert. We may disagree on matters of combat balance and some of the specific details of ship balance but those are really topics for discussion elsewhere.

Indeed, far from useless. Think we also agree on the areas which do need work on carriers. The ships themselves are OK & reasonably well balanced, with respect to the capabilities of Xenon ships at least (have not tested against others). The biggest problem they have is the difficulty involved in moving ships between internal storage & external docks - I certainly find the lengths I have to go to accomplish this rather frustrating. Think docking procedures for S/M ships is also a little poor, but that's not really a carrier issue per se.

[Shehriazad]

So the beta patch has increased L turret damage, general turret accuracy/tracking and given Carriers constant shield regeneration to avoid a single rinky-dink fighter destroying it.


Xenon K are also now very capable of facing off any XL Ship in a 1 v 1 and can destroy small S/M Patrols easily...haven't found a Xenon I yet post-patch!

[GCU Grey Area]

So the beta patch has increased L turret damage, general turret accuracy/tracking and given Carriers constant shield regeneration to avoid a single rinky-dink fighter destroying it.


Xenon K are also now very capable of facing off any XL Ship in a 1 v 1 and can destroy small S/M Patrols easily...haven't found a Xenon I yet post-patch!

Just seen a Xenon I + friends (half a dozen Ks) systematically blowing the crap out of a defence station near the Ianamus Zura trade station - defence station nailed 2 of the Ks but there are plenty left & it looks to have lost all of it's defence modules. Anyway, after seeing that I'm not hanging around - I'm just a little Teladi (restarted for 2.0) & all I've got is a Falcon Sentinel with a pair of Pulse lasersss...

[mr.WHO]

Regarding Carriers and Beta - has someone been able to check this?

"> Added fighter wings directly subordinate to carriers."

Is this some lind of carrier improvement or just adding fighters to NPC carriers?

[pref]

The ships themselves are OK & reasonably well balanced, with respect to the capabilities of Xenon ships at least (have not tested against others).

K's can't really kill a couple S ships according to my test. Xenon capships are another issue on their own. One balance issue hiding the other..

But ES told us that they will rebalance finally, so capships might be somewhat more potent. Looking forward to those changes.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

I think you were missing the point by a VERY wide margin, your test was not a true test of Destroyer v Carrier *WITHOUT SUPPORT SHIPS* in both cases. your insistence on relying on surface docked ships to supplement your turrets in either case invalidates your attempt to counter the valid point that has been made about the relative solo ship capabilities of Destroyers and Carriers.

The tests were primarily for my own benefit, to re-assess relative combat strength of the 3 ships & see if I'd overlooked something in previous tests of the destroyers. Countering points in this discussion was very much a secondary consideration, much more important for my own purposes to setup the ships in the configurations I'd use in practice. Just thought other people might also find results interesting so perhaps worth taking the time to make such a lengthy post. Wanted to give Odysseus the best possible chance of impressing me, hence the docked Peregrine. It did, to an extent, however in the final test Colossus without docked ships still outperformed it in an anti-capital role. Convinced the flightpath Odysseus was following to bring it's main guns to bear actually reduced it's effective overall DPS, compared to simply flying in close to make full use of it's turrets (i.e. sustained turret fire > sporadic use of main guns).

So you were not even piloting those ships???

You should really try piloting them rather than leaving things to the rather borked AI if you want a true measure of their relative power.

However, regardless of this I believe we are in agreement that on the whole Carriers are not as useless as some try to assert. We may disagree on matters of combat balance and some of the specific details of ship balance but those are really topics for discussion elsewhere.

Indeed, far from useless. Think we also agree on the areas which do need work on carriers. The ships themselves are OK & reasonably well balanced, with respect to the capabilities of Xenon ships at least (have not tested against others). The biggest problem they have is the difficulty involved in moving ships between internal storage & external docks - I certainly find the lengths I have to go to accomplish this rather frustrating. Think docking procedures for S/M ships is also a little poor, but that's not really a carrier issue per se.

Yup - overall most of the problems are universal rather than specific to carriers.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Regarding Carriers and Beta - has someone been able to check this?

"> Added fighter wings directly subordinate to carriers."

Is this some lind of carrier improvement or just adding fighters to NPC carriers?

Almost certainly an NPC thing.

[GCU Grey Area]

So you were not even piloting those ships???

You should really try piloting them rather than leaving things to the rather borked AI if you want a true measure of their relative power.

No thanks, don't enjoy flying anything bigger than M in a combat scenario. Don't mind flying capitals outside of combat - quite enjoyed lumbering around in my Colossus flying between Xenon sectors, but as soon as the shooting starts I immediately head for the docks to grab something smaller, faster & more manoeuverable. It's the way I've always played the Fight part of X games - favourite ship class has always been the M6. In any event you can only fly 1 ship at a time personally so the relative balance when under AI control is rather more important (IMO) than the special case of a player-flown capital, which will always outperform anything the AI can do with that ship.

However previous discussion is all a bit moot now due to the radical changes 2.0 has made to capitals - have seen a 2.0 Xenon fleet in action & it was horrifically brutal (I ran away as fast as I could manage in a Falcon). Also have restarted today (to avoid it being ludicrously easy to build a shipyard of my own using spare change) so will be a while before I get to test the new capital ship balance. Judging by patch notes new tactics will be essential.

[Shehriazad]

The AI now handles carriers a lot better than before and they can now be somewhat of a defensive combat vessel...and actually be good at it. How the balance changes fare in the long run we will have to see...but they're definitely a lot more interesting than before.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

So you were not even piloting those ships???

You should really try piloting them rather than leaving things to the rather borked AI if you want a true measure of their relative power.

No thanks, don't enjoy flying anything bigger than M in a combat scenario. Don't mind flying capitals outside of combat - quite enjoyed lumbering around in my Colossus flying between Xenon sectors, but as soon as the shooting starts I immediately head for the docks to grab something smaller, faster & more manoeuverable. It's the way I've always played the Fight part of X games - favourite ship class has always been the M6. In any event you can only fly 1 ship at a time personally so the relative balance when under AI control is rather more important (IMO) than the special case of a player-flown capital, which will always outperform anything the AI can do with that ship.

However previous discussion is all a bit moot now due to the radical changes 2.0 has made to capitals - have seen a 2.0 Xenon fleet in action & it was horrifically brutal (I ran away as fast as I could manage in a Falcon). Also have restarted today (to avoid it being ludicrously easy to build a shipyard of my own using spare change) so will be a while before I get to test the new capital ship balance. Judging by patch notes new tactics will be essential.

Not entirely given your apparent aversion to flying anything bigger than an M. When comparing the capital's relative effectiveness in combat, you should really consider how their performance may differ when human piloted.

I have noted the Beta for 2.0 but probably will not be trialing it - I have too much of my own development work at the moment to consider testing other people's pre-release work for free in my own time. The changes sound interesting but I am concerned about what form some of the changes may take - including the station profitability balance aspect. The turret rebalance aspect sounds interesting but I hope they do not go too far towards turning capitals in general either into glass cannons (they are not like that in 1.60 and prior) or make them overall OP.

I have not and will not be restarting since most of my building work to date has been geared towards preparing for shipyard construction. Credits are not exactly freely flowing in my game since nearly every credit has been poured into my station building endeavours.

[Shehriazad]

Not entirely given your apparent aversion to flying anything bigger than an M. When comparing the capital's relative effectiveness in combat, you should really consider how their performance may differ when human piloted.

I have noted the Beta for 2.0 but probably will not be trialing it - I have too much of my own development work at the moment to consider testing other people's pre-release work for free in my own time. The changes sound interesting but I am concerned about what form some of the changes may take - including the station profitability balance aspect. The turret rebalance aspect sounds interesting but I hope they do not go too far towards turning capitals in general either into glass cannons (they are not like that in 1.60 and prior) or make them overall OP.

I have not and will not be restarting since most of my building work to date has been geared towards preparing for shipyard construction. Credits are not exactly freely flowing in my game since nearly every credit has been poured into my station building endeavours.

Capitals and Destroyers are both a bit different now but let me, someone who does test for free for others (lol) tell you what I have found so far.


Tanking
The main winners are Carriers here. Their constant regeneration and large shield capacity make them less squishy now so their tanking power actually goes up.

Damage
Turrets are more accurate but L turrets also deal a LOT more damage. This gives carriers a boost in damage and allows them to delete slow S/M ships that get too close.

AI
Carriers now place themselves in a way that allows them to point as many turrets as possible vs their target. Especially on a Condor this is visible as they now like to do full "broadsides"
Destroyers try to stay at Main Battery range and prefer using those.

Combat Boosting
This is relevant to larger ships as smaller ships now do this in a smart(er) way. Xenon fighters for example might only boost 4-5KM now and turn, only boosting away 1/3 of their shields. But reactions vary depending on ships.




P.S. :You will easily be able to spend 2Billion Credits if you want to have all blueprints for shipyards, ships and their gear.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

Sounds like most of the changes have been to capital ship AI... something that does not tend to bother me as much as it does some. I am more interested in the turret changes than the AI changes. Still, good to see the needed AI changes - wont stop the Teladi capitals being probably the worst capitals on the block though.

P.S. :You will easily be able to spend 2Billion Credits if you want to have all blueprints for shipyards, ships and their gear.

Ouch - but not surprising. I already have the Argon M/S shields and M/L Turrets which I got for my stations. I don't know how far I will go with the blue prints but I am pretty well stocked where current station modules are concerned.

[Shehriazad]

STUFF

The Condor that was randomly following a distress call from an Argon station successfully soloed a Xenon K with ease while the Destroyers removed all the Xenon Ps and another K...mind you that is with 2.0 where the Xenon L turrets now deal a lot of damage. With a proper broadside it was actually a really nice firework. You really have to be careful now, though...sending small fighters that are too slow to dodge the turrets is dangerous. I now regularly see Ks just melting M-Drone (Gorgo etc) ships because they aren't nimble enough to dodge the L-Turrets. They just go pop.

Im not sure if this happened before but JUST NOW I also saw some Odysseuseseses in HOP space that would have Gorgos on their landing pads and used them as additional turrets...that's usually something players would do...they keep learning from us.