[AP]New 2.0 Drone Carriers and the phasing out of "fighter pilots".

Sam97531 · Post by **Sam97531** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 05:06

Yes - whole message is spoilered unfortunately.

Spoiler

Show

So it is pretty obvious that plot wise, they really are pushing towards more of Sword of the Stars/Star Trek/insert_whichever_novel/genre style approach to who takes part in space combat; as in the elimination of single-pilot modern fighter-size/class space ships - which is more similar to freespace, freelancer, starwars, etc...

However, until that unfortunate (my opinion) reality takes place, has anyone begun to use those new M7s (that can hold anywhere from 10 to 20+ ships) yet? I assume we'll probably be using them as regular flyboy-fighter carriers rather than drone haulers.

They strike me as different/larger hyperions actually. Well, at least the terran one does so far.

werewolves? · Post by **werewolves?** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 05:19

Maybe useful as an early game player craft/HQ, but there's no way in hell I'm putting 25 fighters inside 600mj shields.

WeriTis · Post by **WeriTis** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 05:38

The terran one especially is a joke. Looks like someone at Egosoft really really does not like the terran faction. Identity crisis much?

Anyway, terran armament was ridiculous before, but with the Maccana it has reached whole new levels. All the other escort carriers can at least carry M6 grade weapons. Maccana? EMPCs. Yes, it is that bad.

On top of an update that basically shouts "SCREW YOU!" to all the players that picked the terran start. UFJD? HUB? HQ? Nope.

Catra · Post by **Catra** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 05:59

CIG : 307/s x 10 = 3,070/s = 8 seconds of firing = 78,400 S(hield)DPS, then drops off to a scant 19,600, which is lower than the maccana's 20,800.

yep, its really bad for the maccana that can fire indefinately.

Jumee · Post by **Jumee** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:01

these drone carriers are really just big TM's and even more they are not big TM's they are big JD carriers

just fill one up with ships that have the equipment you want to move around

WeriTis · Post by **WeriTis** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:04

Catra wrote:CIG : 307/s x 10 = 3,070/s = 8 seconds of firing = 78,400 S(hield)DPS, then drops off to a scant 19,600, which is lower than the maccana's 20,800.

yep, its really bad for the maccana that can fire indefinately.

Now maybe you want to factor in how likely an encounter is going to happen IS and OOS, given that IS only concerns your current sector and OS calc every single sector except your current one. In OOS, weapon energy still is unlimited. Your argument is pretty much invalid.

Also, gauss cannons.

Jumee · Post by **Jumee** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:10

I would never let that ship get anywhere near enemies OOS it has way too low shields and way to big hangars for that, tbh I expected those drone carriers to be like panther but the way they are now, they do not stand a chance neither IS not OOS (especially OOS)

Catra · Post by **Catra** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:16

WeriTis wrote:
Catra wrote:CIG : 307/s x 10 = 3,070/s = 8 seconds of firing = 78,400 S(hield)DPS, then drops off to a scant 19,600, which is lower than the maccana's 20,800.

yep, its really bad for the maccana that can fire indefinately.
Now maybe you want to factor in how likely an encounter is going to happen IS and OOS, given that IS only concerns your current sector and OS calc every single sector except your current one. In OOS, weapon energy still is unlimited. Your argument is pretty much invalid.

Also, gauss cannons.

invalid because you got a feeble / nonexistent arguement against it and dont want to appear outplayed?

WeriTis · Post by **WeriTis** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:31

Catra wrote: invalid because you got a feeble / nonexistent arguement against it and dont want to appear outplayed?

Your lack of logic would also imply M5 with indefinitely firing IREs > Shrike.

Apart from that, i cannot see to which of the new M7s your little fantasy examply would even apply. Now, stop trolling pls.

Catra · Post by **Catra** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:41

WeriTis wrote:
Catra wrote: invalid because you got a feeble / nonexistent arguement against it and dont want to appear outplayed?
Your lack of logic would also imply M5 with indefinitely firing IREs > Shrike.

Apart from that, i cannot see to which of the new M7s your little fantasy examply would even apply. Now, stop trolling pls.

youre the one trolling bro, bringing up nonsensical arguements and and not having any idea as to what im talking about and trying to argue against it.

werewolves? · Post by **werewolves?** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:50

In most engagements the shields on these new ships will melt long before they finish emptying their laser energy.

Better off with an Elephant or Ryu, about the same laser energy, more speed can mount IBL's and flaks, half as many fighters but more drones, shields and fire-power.

They need at least 2gj shields to be viable.

WeriTis · Post by **WeriTis** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 06:53

Catra wrote: youre the one trolling bro, bringing up nonsensical arguements and and not having any idea as to what im talking about and trying to argue against it.

Heh. As a troll, you should not let the one you are trolling have the satisfaction of seeing you make posts that are just needlessly longer versions of "no you!".

To not further derail the thread, i will not take part in this apparently personal dispute any longer.

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 08:05

werewolves? wrote:In most engagements the shields on these new ships will melt long before they finish emptying their laser energy.

Surely the whole point of these new ships is to act more like traditional carriers--e.g. you use their fighter wings to defend them? Just like you wouldn't ever find a real-world carrier in a combat zone without some airborne scouts out to watch for threats, you'd have to do the same with these ships.

WeriTis · Post by **WeriTis** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 08:09

pjknibbs wrote:
werewolves? wrote:In most engagements the shields on these new ships will melt long before they finish emptying their laser energy.
Surely the whole point of these new ships is to act more like traditional carriers--e.g. you use their fighter wings to defend them? Just like you wouldn't ever find a real-world carrier in a combat zone without some airborne scouts out to watch for threats, you'd have to do the same with these ships.

Agreed. The only thing with that is that i cannot imagine Obama to babysit every single carrier and tell them what planes to launch and where to send scouts.
As it is in the X series, a carrier will only launch its fighters once it gets attacked. That means, carriers ingame are not really comparable to RL carriers, and also, they need shields.

wRAR · Post by **wRAR** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 08:27

How are new carrier M7s better than old carrier M7 (Panther)? Or they are its counterparts for other races?

WeriTis · Post by **WeriTis** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 08:39

They are, like Jumee already mentioned, mostly overpriced bigger versions of TMs.

They cost like 14-18 Mio Credits, and have hangar sizes of 10-24. But they are very lightly shielded, 600MJ-1Gj. Also very lightly armed.

Main feature is probably their "Drone Carrier" functionality. Dunno what that really means yet, but maybe they make their own drones.

Anway, their stats are kind of strange, since you'd only ever want the paranid one or maybe the teladi for the 2 gauss cannons.

tater-tots · Post by **tater-tots** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 09:17

yeah for the guppy!!! favorite ship yet.

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 12:01

The Drone Carrier M7 were supposed to have a [insert stuff that has to do with drones] functionality which, alas, did not make it into 2.0.

The game's "hardware" is prepared to [do stuff with drones] but the scripts for it simply do not exist.
They could, however, be supplied through a potential bonus pack script, which adds the functionality but could not alter the core game stats, like ship stats.
That's why the DC all by themselves are "bad ships".

The DC stats would make more sense if you figured in the different drones they are "compatible with".

Xander Cade · Post by **Xander Cade** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 12:53

Gazz wrote:The Drone Carrier M7 were supposed to have a [insert stuff that has to do with drones] functionality which, alas, did not make it into 2.0.

The game's "hardware" is prepared to [do stuff with drones] but the scripts for it simply do not exist.
They could, however, be supplied through a potential bonus pack script, which adds the functionality but could not alter the core game stats, like ship stats.
That's why the DC all by themselves are "bad ships".

The DC stats would make more sense if you figured in the different drones they are "compatible with".

So, what you're saying is that the guys at XTM could code in the Griffon to build and deploy Drones in X3:R, but the scripts don't exist for AP? Did anyone think to, I don't know, convert them?

What exactly is a "Drone Hauler"? It comes as a standard fitting on all of the new M7s I have looked at (two on the Guppy and Cormorant and one on the Griffon), but it's not showing up in the Info screen, either as freight or an extension.

As for the utility of the things, I expect that if the Fleet Commander scripts worked properly these M7s would make ideal small Fleet Commanders because the FC avoids combat while making it's fighters do all the work. They might also work well for SEWN response.

Jumee · Post by **Jumee** » Sat, 25. Feb 12, 13:14

Xander Cade wrote: What exactly is a "Drone Hauler"? It comes as a standard fitting on all of the new M7s I have looked at (two on the Guppy and Cormorant and one on the Griffon), but it's not showing up in the Info screen, either as freight or an extension.

it is a small m4 which the ship was supposed to autonomously create in limited numbers (afaik numbers equal to docking ports so 20 docking slots 20 automatically created M4)

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

[AP]New 2.0 Drone Carriers and the phasing out of "fighter pilots".

[AP]New 2.0 Drone Carriers and the phasing out of "fighter pilots".