Attacking Fleet Carriers

[Pikkoro]

Hey, I would actually like a combat interaction with Fleet Carriers, especially when enemy Fleet Carriers are at an own System.
It needs of course a lot conditions to make that work and not too broken. But first of all it would be about not to destroy them. Instead it would be like fighting against Mega ships or Capital ships with power grids on turrets and power capacitors. Destroying those could cause malfunctions of the services and also cost to repair. Like repairing a tower 1 Mil and repairing a power Capacitor 5 Mil. Then every service gets 1 or 2 Power Capacitors and no idea how many Turrets.
If people don't care and let a damaged FC just sitting in the systems, athen it's still a nice view to see that thing burning.

There should be alos save systems. Maybe aligning that with powers. If someone aligned to a power, those systems are "save" and the ship can't get attacked. If a player is independent, then the independend powers are automatically his save zones. That's just one idea, could be also different solved by locking 1 system as home system. Or that a Carrier is attackable needs a special "combat module" and without that combat modules some services are still resitriced. Could be many different versions of that idea

 

[varonica]

Yeah right...no, it would just lead to groups of gankers endlessly attacking particular FC's until the owner can no longer afford to repair and has to decommission.

 

[GroG79]

That is likely what OP wants

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yeah right...no, it would just lead to groups of gankers endlessly attacking particular FC's until the owner can no longer afford to repair and has to decommission.

Pretty much this. If there are persistent assets that could be affected in some way to cause the owner loss, then they would be griefer magnets.

 

[through the hole backwards]

You could always code your own game?

 

[777Driver]

Tbh I wouldn't mind seeing what the op describes, if handled correctly. Any attack would need to be carried out by a well coordinated strike from a large number of cmdrs with a purpose, not just a bunch of bored gankers. It should be extremely difficult to get through any defences, and costly for the attacking side. Make any group think twice about launching an attack.

The problem with this game is that attacks against NPC capital class ships is a walk in the park, it should never have been like that. Watch any video of attacks on capital class warships in a CZ, laughable, just camp the relays.

I always liked how freespace handled capital class warship attacks, you felt like a WWII pilot, not expecting to return home.

 

[Tifu]

You'd need a small armada of ATRs to protect an FC against gankers. And most carriers i suspect are run by solo commanders, good luck finding enough friends to put up a good fight much less protect it 24x7.

 

[Dragsham]

Id agree to Op post IF slfs launched from my carrier in a swarm of bees style...and fc owners have 10 20 or 30 even depending on how much they paid for the modules.
And they should be engineered too lol. And some torpedo bays beams multicannons etc..hot as hell for the enemy

 

[Old Duck]

Tbh I wouldn't mind seeing what the op describes, if handled correctly. Any attack would need to be carried out by a well coordinated strike from a large number of cmdrs with a purpose, not just a bunch of bored gankers.

I dunno, bunches of bored gankers are some of the most coordinated players I've ever met, LOL.

 

[777Driver]

I dunno, bunches of bored gankers are some of the most coordinated players I've ever met, LOL.

Yeah true, but most gankers I come across run as soon as they realize a slight challenge is involved, the rest don't actually think of themselves as gankers. I would hear the term 'Organised terrorist group' a fair bit

 

[Pikkoro]

Yeah right...no, it would just lead to groups of gankers endlessly attacking particular FC's until the owner can no longer afford to repair and has to decommission.

Pretty much this. If there are persistent assets that could be affected in some way to cause the owner loss, then they would be griefer magnets.

First of all it's about the Idea FC -> Combat interaction, and not about the detail how it is implement. It's about to get a design to not have griefer magnets. But even going with the details, in my suggestion I see no way for griefing? I mentioned to have safe zones or some ways to avoide griefing. Also if you don't repair, then it won't costs anything? You would just not be able to use the services. But then again, I mentioned to implement ways to not going into ganking/griefing areas.

I would just like, if enemy carries enter an hostile area, they should be able to get punsihed or have at least a risk...

You could always code your own game?

But for what is the suggestion sub-forum? Maybe for suggestions?
Beside that, I couldn't I'm not a game developer nor I have a company to do that.

Tbh I wouldn't mind seeing what the op describes, if handled correctly. Any attack would need to be carried out by a well coordinated strike from a large number of cmdrs with a purpose, not just a bunch of bored gankers. It should be extremely difficult to get through any defences, and costly for the attacking side. Make any group think twice about launching an attack.

The problem with this game is that attacks against NPC capital class ships is a walk in the park, it should never have been like that. Watch any video of attacks on capital class warships in a CZ, laughable, just camp the relays.

I always liked how freespace handled capital class warship attacks, you felt like a WWII pilot, not expecting to return home.

That's why I mentioned the combat modules. Maybe it allows Hangars of Fighters and more self-defence, without that a carrier should avoide hostile systems.
And yes, that would make sense, if an Attack would also costs a lot the attacker. The point would be "We attack the carrier to make them uncomfortable in our territory even if it costs myself also a lot". So it would be nothing out of boredom, only about considered, strategic reasons.

You'd need a small armada of ATRs to protect an FC against gankers. And most carriers i suspect are run by solo commanders, good luck finding enough friends to put up a good fight much less protect it 24x7.

Well Implementing a working design won't be easy, for sure

Id agree to Op post IF slfs launched from my carrier in a swarm of bees style...and fc owners have 10 20 or 30 even depending on how much they paid for the modules.
And they should be engineered too lol. And some torpedo bays beams multicannons etc..hot as hell for the enemy

Would be actually cool, if the Carrier would have a well designed combat-module setting ^^

 

[wize5]

No. Carriers are a credit sink as it is. No need to make it worse by allowing others to attack it, especially since they are persistence. If you really want to attack big ships there are plenty of mega ships and capital ships in the game without involving player carriers

 

[Pikkoro]

No. Carriers are a credit sink as it is. No need to make it worse by allowing others to attack it, especially since they are persistence. If you really want to attack big ships there are plenty of mega ships and capital ships in the game without involving player carriers

As I said, it's up to the Carrier owner, if he goes the risk to get damaged or not. The FC owner would decide "Do I jump and park my Carrier in a hostile system or do I jump into a friendly zone"
So if you are afraid of losing credits, then you shouldn't consider to go to a hostile system.

It's not about attack any large ship, it's about attacking hostile Fleet Carries in own systems.

 

[wize5]

No, not an option. Fleet carriers are persistent across all platforms that's inviting trouble if you have a group that is constantly attacking it but are on a different platform from you. You can't defend your carrier and the ai handling the fight is laughable at best.

 

[Pikkoro]

No, not an option. Fleet carriers are persistent across all platforms that's inviting trouble if you have a group that is constantly attacking it but are on a different platform from you. You can't defend your carrier and the ai handling the fight is laughable at best.

Of course it's an option, the FC owner decides to place the FC in a hostile system or not.

How it has to be defended is up to the devs, what they want implement. As mention earlier by someone, there could be modules and that attacking a Carrier is never worhty by solo gankers and even wings will have high costs. So the attacker will not going out of it with a pure profit, it'S only about to scare carriers out of hostile systems.

The only question is, how to define hostile systems and how to implement such a system.

 

[wize5]

You missed the point of my post all to together.

How is a pc players going to stop a playstation or xbox player group from constantly attacking the carrier

this is what I ment, leaving the AI to handle the defense is a terrible idea.

 

[varonica]

Of course it's an option, the FC owner decides to place the FC in a hostile system or not.

How it has to be defended is up to the devs, what they want implement. As mention earlier by someone, there could be modules and that attacking a Carrier is never worhty by solo gankers and even wings will have high costs. So the attacker will not going out of it with a pure profit, it'S only about to scare carriers out of hostile systems.

The only question is, how to define hostile systems and how to implement such a system.

FC's are trackable across the galaxy, define "hostile system". Surely any system that's anarchy is hostile, otherwise what's the point of them being anarchy?

 

[Tifu]

I think this brings us back to the point that there should be huge non-persistent, non-universal platform, destructible ships that can carry smaller ships and carry these with a jump range of 100-150ly. And without needing tritium to do it.

No UC, no huge cargo depot - just a shipyard & outfitting.

Who needs a carrier for BGS work if you can have this?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Of course it's an option, the FC owner decides to place the FC in a hostile system or not.

How it has to be defended is up to the devs, what they want implement. As mention earlier by someone, there could be modules and that attacking a Carrier is never worhty by solo gankers and even wings will have high costs. So the attacker will not going out of it with a pure profit, it'S only about to scare carriers out of hostile systems.

The only question is, how to define hostile systems and how to implement such a system.

Its not just about being in a hostile system.

Remember, we are talking about people here. People on the internet, who hold grudges over silly online things.

Let's say i annoy someone on the forums with my comments. They might look up where my carrier is, and come and attack it for no other reason that i annoyed them on the forums.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You missed the point of my post all to together.

How is a pc players going to stop a playstation or xbox player group from constantly attacking the carrier

this is what I ment, leaving the AI to handle the defense is a terrible idea.

Even on the same platform. You can't be online all the time and even if you can be, you want to do stuff, not babysit your carrier all the time you are online.