Some of these replies seem to indicate a misunderstanding of how carriers should fit into the the tactical battlefield- at least traditionally in these types of games. Many people take issue on the "fighters as weapons" part of the design destroying warship viability unless carriers are actually made to be bad. They are willing to sacrifice carriers' overall viability because they like flying warships more than carriers (gee I wonder why? Maybe because carriers as glorified fighter barges that can't even pick multiple targets to attack are boring compared to the flux war?
) and range and eternal wing replacement seems too powerful. It really isn't though. I mean, I get why that mentality exists when used to flying a warship, but you are trying to make carriers balance along the same operating principles as warships. That will quite frankly never work without a complete redesign. At least right now flying a carrier lets you do something (press z on a targeted enemy) whereas in pre-.8 flying a carrier was even more boring. Fighters were separate entities so you could control them without any need for flying the carrier itself. Not ideal.
Aircraft (and their modern version- drones), as a
concept and historically have always been "OP". That doesn't mean they have to be from an overall design standpoint, however. To make a good strike craft/warship balance you make the carrier vulnerable but still able to use its strike craft effectively. That is what results in good gameplay tactics. Weaponless carriers do have that effect, true, but it is a boring and off-putting way of implementing that. There are much better ways.
If the Heron has enough guns to destroy a frigate in the flux war, that does not make carriers OP
even if its strike craft can kill a destroyer or damage another cruiser at range. Its a cruiser. It should kill a frigate almost no matter the circumstances and destroyers should mostly lose as well. That is how the Eagle operates too... there really isn't a difference
except since strike craft have so much range they are the priority threat. That point, in particular, is the main issue I think some players struggle with. They don't want that to be the case but it
has to be for strike craft to feel worth it to use. Otherwise, they will be mostly flavor- like they have been for every update pre-.8 imo. I used them because I liked them, not because they felt good. The only way back then to make them work was, ironically, picking the most optimal ones and mono-spamming them (remember the old Thunder?). In small numbers they were borderline useless.
Now an Eagle vs a Heron? First of all, the Heron should be at least 1/3 or more weaker defensively. The carrier has less flux stats and defense. It should also be quite a bite slower. Quite honestly, if two Herons are fighting an Eagle
without escorts.... the Eagle should barely win most of the time. But a Heron and a destroyer escort to screen it? Much different story.
Fighters are counterable, but not always. Carriers in a mixed force can hide behind warships or buy some time with their swiftness. And on their own, they can be really hard to catch, without you also taking damage from fighters, too.
Yeah, this is a big part of the problem. On their own, they should be sitting ducks to anything their hullsize. They should, however, be capable of lightly defending themselves against smaller threats. Smaller threats should rely on wolf-pack tactics to combat them (just like when fighting a regular warship of a larger hull size) but have such higher speed that the fighters can't pick too many of them off before they close the distance.
In this case what is easy is also elegant. There's no need for complicated -10% effective within a certain range, or only a set amount of fighters can attack a ship, or fighter weapons do double damage to other fighters, if you can adjust pre-existing values of HP or flux capacity or fighter replacement rate.
Ok then, I'm open to your interpretation though I don't agree right now. Give me an example of how that would operate once implemented. What is your "vision" (be as specific as possible) of how stat changes will solve these problems?
If you are concerned for the" initial" damage of the strike for the viable duration the craft can stay on target, "alpha strike" is kind of the opposite of that in common gaming parlance. In any case, that is kind of the point. By reducing values of HP or flux capacity is just an alternative to reducing the fighter replacement rate. Both are a suggestion with similar aims. To reduce the rate of auto regenerating fighter "cloud". The first has a bonus in reducing the ability of fighters to simply destroy frigates with ease.
The first sentence makes me think you don't quite understand what I am saying unless I have been misunderstanding alpha strike- which I certainly could be. In military terms, its just how many fighters/bombers (really just damage) you can field in a single sortie on one target. The limited ammo idea I suggested relates to this because alpha strike for fighters, atm, is unlimited because it relies on fighter losses in order for it to be reduced in any way (bombers notwithstanding) Limited ammo makes interceptors like the spark and thunder also follow this rule and makes it easier to balance massed fighter clouds. This would be a
huge nerf to the staying power of all fighters which don't currently have limited ammo because it reduces the alpha strike vs time- which makes large fighter clouds so effective since they can just move to a new target without providing a window of opportunity for any counter reaction.
If interceptors and anti-fighter fighters better followed their role, that nerf wouldn't really matter. We don't want interceptors to be ship killers any more than we want a cruiser sized carrier killing a cruiser in close combat. Strike craft killing frigates with ease (should they hit them) is as it should be. To make them not do that would make them incredibly bad against larger ships. Frigates must rely on larger targets acting as shields, positioning, numerical superiority and allied fighters to survive. That's what its speed and maneuverability is for. It's on-board PD is a deterrent and additional support- not a solution in and of itself. A frigate is a tactical combat vessel whereas a battleship is a brute force combat vessel.
As for weapon mounts being left, most often they are small weapon mounts on ships that have medium and large weapon mounts available. Small weapons are costed for as if they are compared to other small weapons, but their worth decreases vastly once larger weapon mounts are available. LDMG and PD Laser might be worth 4 OP due to small frigate to frigate combat it might have a dual role, but in larger ships, it would be rare to see them being worth that OP, short of perhaps destroyers with safety overides hullmod. It's like another version of the frigate vs capital problem. It probably doesn't help that for instance that many small weapon mounts have small coverages that overlap with larger coverages. For instance I advocate that a Dominator can leave 2 or even 4 of its side small mounts empty, as it simply doesn't need that many if equipped the the PD-specialised vulcans. Perhaps empty weapon mounts should be automatically filled with almost useless PD mount for free. Or perhaps Cruisers can have a -1 OP and Capitals have a -2 OP reduction to small mounts, but that come with the disadvantage of being a significant boost to cruiser and capital power, when they do not need it.
But in the case of carriers, it is due to the carrier themselves don't need weapons. They have a range 4000 weapon in the form of fighter bays. At the moment, carriers have a weapon count as if they were one hull size lower. Why would you want them to move closer to a range they can barely fight at? If carriers were given more OP, that OP can be used to make carriers better weaponless carriers. Or if they could use their OP to fight like them, and with their fighter complement as well, all carriers, being viable as combat carriers would eclipse warships as combat ships. The carrier OP / empty weapon mounts on many warships is a separate issue and a fairly complicated one at that.
That's a good analysis. It also means small weapons aren't doing their job correctly- or large weapons are doing their job too well. Larger weapons should not be able to hit frigates or fighters reliably unless they are specifically balanced to do so by being weaker in their primary role.
Take the dominator example: The small weapon mounts you advocate are unnecessary
should be necessary to prevent a frigate surround from pinning the dominator. For a warship, it shouldn't be about just PD. Small assault weapons should hit fighters more reliably as well, its just that PD is equally as good or better and can also stop missiles. I digress...
The point is, even if its true that more OP just leads to better weaponless carriers, then other solutions should be considered. It can't just be left how it is, imo.
Ability to fill all mounts with any weapons robs the player of the real choice. You can just remove fitting option altogether. At least now Onslaught is not some abstract "DP slot" (like carriers) but very distinctive melee brawler with the memorable character.
Agreed, though I don't think that is what anyone is trying to advocate. Its more that a player is encouraged to fill all weapon mounts with
something.