Alright with the beta 3 changes, having tested it Carrier can STILL build their SC in 35 seconds from their inital 10-15 seconds before. THIS DOES NOT REALLY HELP. Adding a couple seconds changes very little, considering how durable SC in general are. Anti-matter really does need to be incorporated so Carriers can't spam SC replacements immediately after a jump.
I actually agree with this. Dogfighting would be great. Don't just go telling everyone to mod it, with that logic Ironclad could have left SINs at 1.0 and told everyone to stop bitching and go mod it yourself. nice, one there Mooster.
I'm pretty sure the Flak really is better in the beta. Did the Flak itself get buffed or just the targetting? I'm still not sure if this will finally let the Flak be viable. I tested this and the carrier EVEN with the 75% penalty builds the SC in less than 30-35 seconds. ... gah what was the whole point of the penalty IF it just added 15 seconds on to the build time? Fighters are actually durable and you actually don't lose that many in less than a minute.
In Star Trek, fighters are much less prominent because big ships can target the fighters (which really act like LRMs/LFs) them with their main phaser arrays and take them out much easier than in SINs. In SINs caps can't target SC with their default weapons. It'd really suck to be a figher pilot in Star Trek. The causalty rate would be inhumane. Probably why most battles in Star Trek are cap ship to cap ship. In several episodes, the enterprise killed <span style="t
[quote who="Shadow_of_Light" reply="18" id="2071540"] so i totally agree with CreditSuisse capital ships / stations can't really be named like that unless having a few flak-batteries even if it's just to make it feel epic "or more epic for those that dont want to change stuff" who doesnt dream of being on cap-ship bridge with dozens of flak-guns tracking the enemy, and thousands of shells being fired from them..explosions left n right...[/quote] <p
To MarcParis, I've already answered your concern in the Rebuttal Section. Capital Ships would not be an "no-flaw" ship because it will still go down to massed SC and massed LRFs without adequete support. 2 Flak Frigates worth of AA is not gonna stop massed bombers from massacring the ship like in real life Yamato and Bismarck. However, combined with other ships, the cap wil Flak could still help out and make a slight difference in the battle. Everyone please remember thi
That's correct Ryat, My purpose is to show the developers that this idea has merit and a significant body of support behind it in the SINs community. (well, apart from a few diehards who hate everything of course) It's completely up to them to implement it or not, but Ironclad implemented a lot of their community's ideas into entrenchment and unlike most companies Ironclad actually does read these forums.
Someone mention that btw, the Executor's shields went down because all the Rebel capital ships were focus firing on it? Then a random A-Wing (That was shot down by the Executor's AA ) crashed into the bridge. To answer a earlier question, the armaments I listed was for the battleship Yamato it's all accurate, feel free to look them up down to the exact type. Yamato was credited with over 30 aircraft kills in its final battle with the US fleet.
Hack, I don't want to start, so I'm not going to. Any thread you touch turns into a messy shitfest over your own ego. I'll say this politely: please leave, thank you. Adieu. Btw, let me just say you've completely missed my point and gone off the high end. [e digicons]:banhammer:[/e]
[quote who="Flipkik" reply="23" id="2071031"] Quoting Vitamin J, reply 21 Your definition of OP is so far beyond what (I believe) anyone is claiming. If carriers were OP to that extent, then the pros would be carrier spamming. No one claims they are unbeatable. Then why complain if they aren't OP too the extend of unbeatable? If I may ask or course. If you can beat something there is no reason too flame it, right? Grtz, [_]-Flipkik[/quote]
Thank you everyone for the great comments. I'd glad to see so many people argeeing with me. This thread has been received very well indeed. If you like what you see, feel appreciative of the quality of this thread, please feel free to give me karma. [e digicons]:beer:[/e] Once again, thank you to everyone that expressed such support. [e digicons]:yes:[/e]
I play on a Mac, with Windows XP installed thru boot-camp. Mac are 100% better than PCs! Hi I'm a mac, and I'm a PC! PC: **** you Mac! haha
Everyone thank you so much for feedback on this subject but I want to warn everyone that very soon a known troll: Hack87 will most likely come in here with a red herring/straw man argument then pretending this entire idea is worthless. I really hope this won't happen but in my experience this troll always comes into threads like this seeking to shred ideas and spew hate on posters and people. Here's a warning against Hack87, please look at this idea on its own meri
Thank you for contributing to the Sunday Rebuttal section! Gentlemen, I wish to start off by saying its not only about the mere absolutes, nor is it about balancing against strike craft - it isn't. It's about the spirit and style of the very genre of science-fiction itself. Regardless of how you feel about strike craft, there is no good reason for capital ships to absolutely have no Flak at all absolutely. Does this make sense in
What the? Blair Fraser is STILL up and answering threads at 3:33 am? Is he a machine or something? I didn't know that Ironclad was that dedicated... Now only if Blair Fraser ever read my "New Idea" Series of threads. [e digicons]:'([/e]
Come on guys give him some uber Karma! This is good stuff!
https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/340609/page/1/#2069983 This is a change I would really like to see implemented once Entrenchment comes out. Its not asking for much. Make this happen!
[reserved]
That is why they need a buff
A collection of quotes from around the Forums. Credit goes out to all involved as well as +1 Karma. [quote who="Phalnax811" reply="8" id="2062835"]Cap Ships should have flak guns too...that's a no-brainer. Stupid that ships like the Marza is defenseless against fighters early on...especially on small maps. It's only common sense to make cap ships able to respond to any threat.-Phalnax[/quote] [quote who="superfleet" reply="2" id="2062938"]Iron clad, im b
In the newly imagined hit-series Battlestar Galactica, the capital ship had a very sophisticated Flak defense array capable of projecting a dense Flak shield around the battlestar. Now, I have to ask the Ironclad developers, have they ever seen the Anti-SC capabilities of a capital ship in that series? Well it looks like this: <img src="http://battlestargenesis.wdfiles.com/local--files/pilotslang/bsg-battle-scene.jpg" alt="" width="550"
Also Capital Carrier's are flippin expensive. Capital Ships are flippin expensive. The sheer cost alone will not let spammers effectively spam enough SC spam to end all spam. It just isn't possible and they'll have to get balanced fleets. Also Capital Ships will HAVE TO lv. up to reach a optimal number of Strike Craft. Thus, the light carrier will still be very viable. All in all, its not that big of a buff to the Capital Carrier - just a much needed and desired one.
As long as we're all advocating buffing caps... [e digicons]:beer:[/e] [e digicons]:beer:[/e] [e digicons]:beer:[/e] [e digicons]:beer:[/e] [e digicons]:beer:[/e] [e digicons]:beer:[/e] [e digicons]:beer:[/e] FREE BEERs for everyone on the HOUSE.! [e digicons]:D[/e]
It is 10 cosmological decades old. But after around the 120th cosmological decade the universe would be essentially nothingness. Heat Death.
[quote who="Hack78" reply="4" id="2069880"]They never do anything useful when they debate in parliment - just insult each other...[/quote] That is true, pretty fun to watch though. [e digicons]:beer:[/e] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&feature=related
