A little counter-intuitive perhaps, but allow me to explain my logic... Most of us want our CVs to feel like the huge juggernauts from science fiction (eg. like a Star Destroyer). But certain things can subtract from the epic feel of CVs. *As mentioned frequently by others, they often handle like stunt fighters, turning 360o within a second or two if they are stacked with plenty of T2 RSCs, and can accelerate so fast they feel like lightweight toys rather than they immense weighty behemoths. Speed is ok, agility is not, it makes CVs feel cheap and tacky. Turning a Star Destroyer should be a big deal. That sluggishness is necessary to signal the brain - this feels like a massive ship! *Most PvP CVs follow one basic optimal design, that is a 'battleship' with a full rack of turrets near the back facing forward, components under a bunch of armour, and a mid-front section with decoys essentially designed to be a big metal shield to hide your actual ship behind. It's always the same turret variety, always all facing front. The resulting combat is sometimes equally limited - point at enemy, shoot until you're hitting the vital stuff. It would be nice to see the mechanics structured so there are multiple optimal ship designs and sizes (like brawlers, siege ships, SV-screening cruisers, missile boats). This would go well with mechanics that made it easier to flank a CV, and for there to be some forward planning in movement like a ocean ship battle. *They aren't a hub of activity, like a mothership. Late game, there's little gameplay reason to host a group of people. Usually each person has a CV and does things separately. It doesn't make sense for buddies to use my CV hangar for mining or combat, especially mid-late game. *Some of the design limits aimed at addressing various issues (eg. turret limits) feel very arbitrary and clunky. A more elegent system would be create balanced flexibility in design. --Ideas for CV improvements/enhancements-- I want to suggest a central mechanical change that is only helpful in what it later allows, and then, if you'll bear with me, I'll list the more obvious change flowing from this that provide more direct benefits. The first part of my suggestion is to use power/generators as an elegant way of balancing ships and forcing ship designers to choose a more focused ship's role, creating a more diverse ecosystem of optimal ship designs. To do this, generators, especially T2 ones, get heavily nerfed, and would require a MUCH greater percentage of the ships interior. Because space is limited, a ship designer must make a careful choice of where the power, which is now scarce, is going to be directed. For each ship design they must select a trade-off between weapons, shields, turning speed (RCS), thrust, endurance (fuel tanks which are also nerfed, displacing precious generator space), and cargo space. These things are all now configured so that they would draw roughly equal power on a typical multipurpose ship (yes I'm including cargo space and RCS drawing large amounts when they're in use). You can add more guns, shield systems, cargo space or RCS as you please, but only if you have enough power, and at the expense of other things you might use power for. Now if you want a ship to be better at something, it needs to get worse at something else. Specialised ships are now useful. There is slight diminishing power efficiency for each extra system (extra generators, and the modules they direct to), so that bigger ships aren't always better, and they require a bigger and bigger percentage of generators per M^3. Any hard upper limits on things are for sanity rather than setting the standard. Class sizes remain in place to allow hosts to manage CPU/GPU performance. To make CVs handle like epic ships, consider the following changes: * T2 RCS are now a SV module, and nerfed a bit. Now mid-large SVs handle a little better, CVs don't act like fighters. Each additional RCS has slightly reduced efficiency. * Increase CV thruster fuel-efficiency, greatly reduce thrust per M^3, so it's about 10-20% of current. Each additional thruster has slightly reduced efficiency. Turning now takes time, accelerating to full speed feels like a weighty decision. * There is now a special 'dropship' CV thruster or thruster mode available that only works in atmosphere, is very powerful per M^3, and is very fuel inefficient. This allows CVs to continue to operate as pickup/setdown for HVs in high gravity, while avoiding the thrust creating tacky-feeling agility in space battles. * The new mouse pilot mode is now the default for CVs - feels more like how you would steer a huge ship. To make CVs into motherships, encouraging frequent use of a hangar, and rewarding teamwork, friendship and coordination: * Mining lasers get moved from CVs to SVs. Mid-large SVs are now the main space miners. * SVs, which should be given much less fuel-efficient thrusters and cargo space than CVs, are therefore encouraged to mine a load and return to mothership. * HVs receive the same. They also also move slightly better in space so they can be transferred between hangars. * Give SVs a special weapon or ability, like for example a slowing beam, to give a reason for hangars to be used in combat. "Launch fighters" should be an actual effective strategy I can use in PvE/PvP. To make CV combat more interesting: * Change weapon stats to reflect greater differentiation/tradeoff between range, accuracy, DPS and power usage. For example, plasma might have double the DPS of cannons, but draw double the power. By accuracy I essentially mean in some way its DPS should be reduced in some form against a target based on its size and agility. It might miss, or a missile explosion or flak shell might do less damage if the target is moving fast. Artillery might be much be much longer range than other weapons. Energy weapon DPS might falloff with range. Where possible the weakness should be gradual rather than sudden. *Remove weapon type limits, just limit overall weapons through power. Now you can make a specialised artillery cruiser, but it would be very vulnerable against SVs or agile CVs, because of the greater differentiation between weapons. *Make turrets ignore non surface weapons (decoys). Increase turret HP to compensate. *Because CVs are now slower, it is now sometimes optimal to put weapons at back or side, as you are far more likely to get flanked especially by smaller ships. *Multiple shield modules are now possible, naturally limited by power and ship size. It makes perfect sense that a huge ship has a huge shield, but it is paying in power for it. Naturally these changes would require tweaking and balancing, but the simplicity of placing different strategies along the power curve allows the balance to be easily calculated, buffed and nerfed. For example, if you want a ship to have an option to get either 10% more DPS vs 15% more shields, you simply need to set the power costs of those modules at that ratio. Thanks for reading! PS As a footnote, I want to suggest as a rule of thumb that in general T2 modules only be around 10% more efficient than T1, but 10 times more expensive. This allows meaningful choices, giving the more established players something to build towards, while not giving them insane advantages over newcomers (their skills should be the big advantage).