[FEEDBACK]New Paranid Carrier can only carry 16 fighters? - WAI.

[Pesanur]

By carefully observing the real proportions of L and XL ships, I was able to create a list of S and M ships that could actually be positioned within the hypothetical space intended for them and the result was this.

Asgard: 6 M 12 S
Syn: 9 S
Osaka: 8 S
Tokyo: 2 M 36 S

Raptor: 4 M 126 S
Rattlesnake: 12 S

Colossus: 12 M 96 S
Behemoth: 20 S

Zeus: 16 M 80 S
Odysseus: 2 M 6 S

Condor: 3 M 12 S
Phoenix: 8 S

I think that for the Raptor make more sense 2 M instead of 4. The M docking bay is just over the engine area and after the entrance to the S docking bays.

[mr.WHO]

Yeah, both Raptor and Tokyo have quite strange placement on M-dock in the back that doesn't give you a much space.

If anything, it makes you wonders - if there is a hangar then were is the space for engine room?

[-=SiR KiLLaLoT=-]

Yeah, both Raptor and Tokyo have quite strange placement on M-dock in the back that doesn't give you a much space.

If anything, it makes you wonders - if there is a hangar then were is the space for engine room?

I can confirm that the Raptor can carry 4M ships internally.
I looked at the initial position of the Dragon ship and went inside with the camera.
Thus it is possible to verify the real size of the internal cube dedicated to the space of the ship.
Here, however, it is possible to notice how the presence of a second internal cube is not a problem.
The point of the matter is that by going inside the cube you can clearly see that it is intended for 2 ships.
So 2x2=4
How do they move ships internally? It does not matter!

[GCU Grey Area]

16 fighters does seem a bit too low to me for a carrier. I'm fine incidentally with the low fighter storage on the other new Paranid capitals & think a similar adjustment should be made to existing ships (assuming that won't break saves). However those ships all have other functions, whereas a carrier's primary function is simply to transport & deploy fighters. Consequently think a greater proportion of it's internal volume would be used for fighter storage (i.e. the ratio of docks to fighter storage should be substantially different for carriers).

Not tried a Zeus E yet (current game is still in quite an early phase), however suspect it won't be nearly as thrilling as when this happens with one of the old carriers when you give the attack order: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tfchws4mpgvxb ... 1.jpg?dl=0 & the sky's suddenly filled with fighters in a matter of seconds. With a Zeus E almost half of it's launch tubes are only going to be launching a single fighter...

[abisha1980]

to be really honest the other ships are wrong and have to much unrealistic space

Raptor should only hold like 25 S ships max

[Alm888]

Come on!
X-universe has such a thing as "space compression". Previously it was used for cargo hold. Now it is used for hangars/crew quarters.

Otherwise you must admit scale and proportions do not make any sense in X4. There is no way in hell a Moreya has room for three crewmen. The heck, she has not room to fit even one Basically, a Moreya is a Pegasus infected by Xenon and growing large Xenon AGI core on her back, further reducing available space of a… well… a cockpit-with-engines kind of ship. Yet, the Moreya has compartments for one additional crewman. See? Makes no sense. So there is no point in measuring capital ships in cubic meters.

As for Behemoth having the same S-ship capacity as a carrier… Well, yes, that makes no sense either. But I believe this issue was previously overlooked due to total incapability of a Behemoth to actually utilize this capacity: the ship's AI logic does not even dock assigned S-class subordinates (at least it didn't back in 3.30HF3), let alone having some basic fleet behavior commands. But realistically, I would say a Behemoth needs the capacity somewhere around twelve. I'm not in charge of game balancing though, so who am I to judge?

[Caedes91]

I am in favor of an overall reduction in capacity for all ships. Destroyers bring their firepower in their Main Weapons and turrets. The docking bay is for utility only (for a scout to explore ahead or marine/service crew transport). The Carriers should significantly have larger capacity, since their S-ships are their fighting capability. Combat drones shouldn't use the landing pads, but the "cargo-tunnel" or dedicated launch-tubes instead.
But most important of all: It still should be realistic considering the proportions of the ships. No Harry Potter magic bags please. Simulation should be taken seriously.

In real life nobody would stuff 40 fighters in a single destroyer with one singular landing pad. Talk about bottleneck. If you have ever seen the flight AI trying to dock, even on a station with lots of choices, you know it's not practical, gameplay-wise etc.

This is why in other sci-fi, you generally see launch-tubes. In a real combat scenario, where you have to quickly react to enemy attacks you must launch your fighters quicky. Anything that takes off from these square pads is a sitting duck ready to be spawn killed. Take for example a look at the Retribution from COD - Infinite Warfare. It's the most realistic design of a space carrier I have ever seen. Not simping for Activision btw, F*ck them and especially Kotick and his friends.

It has lauch-tubes and runway for quick landing to retreat in time if necessary. The carrier, that comes closest to practical in X4, is still the Raptor. Lanching from the front, landing from the back in one fluid motion
The Tokyo on the other hand...it's painful to watch anyone docking there, when a bunch of Gladius, with their wings folded up, are already sitting inside. No room to manouver before hitting the ceiling. Taking off is also messy, since their wingspan is twice the landing pad.

I think it's impossible now and don't see Egosoft ever implementing the kind of launch method, that repair drones have. For the current system to work, I think the ships need to be bigger overall and the S-class fighters need to be reduced in size (no comfortable, spacious, tourist-car-like cockpits), no wings like the gladius, if it cannot fly in atmosphere anyway, even with them on. The ship scale in X4 are a far cry to X3 and Rebirth after all.

[abisha1980]

Come on!
X-universe has such a thing as "space compression". Previously it was used for cargo hold. Now it is used for hangars/crew quarters.

Otherwise you must admit scale and proportions do not make any sense in X4. There is no way in hell a Moreya has room for three crewmen. The heck, she has not room to fit even one Basically, a Moreya is a Pegasus infected by Xenon and growing large Xenon AGI core on her back, further reducing available space of a… well… a cockpit-with-engines kind of ship. Yet, the Moreya has compartments for one additional crewman. See? Makes no sense. So there is no point in measuring capital ships in cubic meters.

As for Behemoth having the same S-ship capacity as a carrier… Well, yes, that makes no sense either. But I believe this issue was previously overlooked due to total incapability of a Behemoth to actually utilize this capacity: the ship's AI logic does not even dock assigned S-class subordinates (at least it didn't back in 3.30HF3), let alone having some basic fleet behavior commands. But realistically, I would say a Behemoth needs the capacity somewhere around twelve. I'm not in charge of game balancing though, so who am I to judge?

you right the space compression exist within the universe of X, but consider the tech is not existing in X4 it's kind of lost tech like most advanced tech X3 had
so volumes should be within reasonable limits.

[Ragnos28]

As someone that make extensive use of carriers in my game, this is my conclusion:
The new Zeus...earn its place as a command ship because of the looks and speed...lost its place as an effective carrier in my fleet composition because of the S ship capacity. Best...and about the only use I see for it, is anti-Kha'ak patrol. So, most likely, I will use a ship with enhance design, OOS, where all I will see will be a green dot. Great move... Also, increase speed for a carrier means exactly squat, because in combat scenarios, my carrier barely moves, is the fighters that move, my carrier just need to enter the sector.

If this...change...is maintained, I can honestly say, that my excitment for the new design of paranid ships is prety much gone, with the option to mass rearm fighters being the highlight of 5.00, imo.

[Imperial Good]

I think all the existing Paranid ships need their numbers revisited. As people are pointing out, the new carrier seems to be a worse carrier than the old carrier.

[Axeface]

The new paranid ships are surely indicative of a new direction for balance... the Zeus E is an outlier because the rest of the games ships have not been updated yet.

To people that state things about real world carriers and how x4 carriers should be similar and have a gazzilion fighters, I ask this... why do 'carriers' need to have 40 S ship capacity? Why do people obsess over these numbers? Why does fleet composition and fighter numbers 1000 years in the future need to have any similarity to 20th century numbers? (hint, it doesnt).
If balance changes, including fighter balance, 16 S ships in the future patches could become as effective as 40 now. OR, balance across the game could be adjusted to make the Zeus E not an outlier.

I for one love the reduction in capacity in freighters and destroyers, this NEEDS to happen to the rest of the games ships (with some variety yes, depending on the ship), but the Zeus E's balance to me is incredibly exciting because it hints at actual thought being put into ship balance with an aim to add variety to the game, versus the base games copy paste and rushed implementation that has strangled gameplay since its inception.

Also, for me, less ships is better for a plethora of reasons, some do to with performance, some to do with plausibility, and others to do with personal preference. I like more hard sci-fi and loads of manned fighters is quite literally immersion breaking for me, all the time. There is something very wrong with it and it doesnt make any sense. I genuinely think that there was an attempt to address this in Rebirth but somewhere along the way we regressed to carriers and fighter swarms like we are in WW2 or something (when talking about swarms in future space warfare we should be talking about drones, for me thats the only way it makes sense).



Also. The Zeus E seems to me to be an attempt to make the hanger capacity make sense literally, like if you were to hanger 16 S ships and 8 M ships inside of it the model would be tangibly full.


In any case, the Zeus E's balance make it a ship that I might actually buy and fly personally - and i'm a person that doesnt use carriers because I dont see the point, since X3.

[abisha1980]

The new paranid ships are surely indicative of a new direction for balance... the Zeus E is an outlier because the rest of the games ships have not been updated yet.

To people that state things about real world carriers and how x4 carriers should be similar and have a gazzilion fighters, I ask this... why do 'carriers' need to have 40 S ship capacity? Why do people obsess over these numbers? Why does fleet composition and fighter numbers 1000 years in the future need to have any similarity to 20th century numbers? (hint, it doesnt).
If balance changes, including fighter balance, 16 S ships in the future patches could become as effective as 40 now. OR, balance across the game could be adjusted to make the Zeus E not an outlier.

I for one love the reduction in capacity in freighters and destroyers, this NEEDS to happen to the rest of the games ships (with some variety yes, depending on the ship), but the Zeus E's balance to me is incredibly exciting because it hints at actual thought being put into ship balance with an aim to add variety to the game, versus the base games copy paste and rushed implementation that has strangled gameplay since its inception.

Also, for me, less ships is better for a plethora of reasons, some do to with performance, some to do with plausibility, and others to do with personal preference. I like more hard sci-fi and loads of manned fighters is quite literally immersion breaking for me, all the time. There is something very wrong with it and it doesnt make any sense. I genuinely think that there was an attempt to address this in Rebirth but somewhere along the way we regressed to carriers and fighter swarms like we are in WW2 or something (when talking about swarms in future space warfare we should be talking about drones, for me thats the only way it makes sense).



Also. The Zeus E seems to me to be an attempt to make the hanger capacity make sense literally, like if you were to hanger 16 S ships and 8 M ships inside of it the model would be tangibly full.


In any case, the Zeus E's balance make it a ship that I might actually buy and fly personally - and i'm a person that doesnt use carriers because I dont see the point, since X3.

yea swarming is a drone job not a S task.
S ships task suppose to be intercept bombers (not being the bomber)

why i think this is the suppose Hierarchy
Homeworld, Starwars, SoSE, & EvE even most land based strategy games follow similar routes

[Raptor34]

It's 8+16 right? So 24 total?
My issue with it is generally that I want a certain mass of fighters for OOS fights to reduce losses. More fighters -> Quicker kills -> Less damage.

Now with that said, I do agree with Axeface. Like, how often do you see the AI field 24 fighters in a single battle group?
Imo what X4 really needs is less ships flying around but with heavier calculations for the AI.

[Ragnos28]

In any case, the Zeus E's balance make it a ship that I might actually buy and fly personally - and i'm a person that doesnt use carriers because I dont see the point, since X3.

Let me see if I can summarize your take..."I don't use carriers so screw everyone who does"...done
Well...I use carriers, so this were your view and mine collide. So what? Now Egosoft should make a game for you and one for me?
Also, I hate takes like...I play the game this way, so EVERYONE should do the same You don't like to use carriers because they don't make sense to you? There is an idea....DON'T USE THEM in your game and leave those who do use them in their game, alone.

[Ragnos28]

yea swarming is a drone job not a S task.
S ships task suppose to be intercept bombers (not being the bomber)

why i think this is the suppose Hierarchy
Homeworld, Starwars, SoSE, & EvE even most land based strategy games follow similar routes

Yeah, because in RL fighters are not bombers as well...wait, they are...oh well. Propeller planes in ww2 were fighters and bombers, modern jet planes are fighters and bombers, space fighters will most likely be the same..why? because is a tactically sound idea.

As for your last phrase, X4 is not "Homeworld, Starwars, SoSE, & EvE", maybe that's the reason I play X4...plus I'm more of BSG fan...I wonder why the creators of that show did not use drones in there

[Ragnos28]

Now with that said, I do agree with Axeface. Like, how often do you see the AI field 24 fighters in a single battle group?
Imo what X4 really needs is less ships flying around but with heavier calculations for the AI.

Well...that's the beauty of X4..the player can do whatever the hell he wants...because is not an AI. There is no reason for which I should copy in detailed the tactics the AI uses and not try to develop and use my own.

[Ragnos28]

It's 8+16 right? So 24 total?
My issue with it is generally that I want a certain mass of fighters for OOS fights to reduce losses. More fighters -> Quicker kills -> Less damage.

I want a certain mass of fighters, IS, so I can do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccNBsTc8hzo&t=113s

[mr.WHO]

The small internal storage bothers me, but since there is no jumpdrives, there isn't much of a point to have big internal storage in a first place.

Are dammage fighters repaired only when sitting on the landing pad, or in internal storage as well?

[Ragnos28]

The small internal storage bothers me, but since there is no jumpdrives, there isn't much of a point to have big internal storage in a first place.

Are dammage fighters repaired only when sitting on the landing pad, or in internal storage as well?

I believe in 5.00, the isue of fighters not being repaired when sitting on the landing pad (those that exceed S ships capacity), will be addressed. In internal storage they are always repaired, to my knowledge.

[Raptor34]

Now with that said, I do agree with Axeface. Like, how often do you see the AI field 24 fighters in a single battle group?
Imo what X4 really needs is less ships flying around but with heavier calculations for the AI.

Well...that's the beauty of X4..the player can do whatever the hell he wants...because is not an AI. There is no reason for which I should copy in detailed the tactics the AI uses and not try to develop and use my own.

I don't think there is much tactics involved in just drowning the AI with numbers.
And it's not like you cannot still do that.