After some long thought about the carrier and strikecraft, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps we should leave well enough alone for now. This is why.
This assumption *IS* debatable, but for the sake of argument, let's say that carriers are currently "slightly OP" (many would say they aren't, and that's fine). This is why I have concluded that it's actually desirable: It doesn't make good sense to *PERFECTLY* balance a game like Sins which has multiple tech levels, because there is no incentive to risk going up the tech tree if there is perfect balance.
For instance, let's take SIns, but with NO tech tree. Then you can try to have perfect balance amongst the units, with no one unit "slightly OP." In this circumstance, a light frig can counter a carrier, which can counter a long range frig, which can counter a light frig. Your opponent spams long range missle frigs? Fine, you spam carriers with fighters. Everything equal, everything balanced.
Now, re-introduce the tech tree. The units are still perfectly balanced. However, to get carriers to combat lrm frigs, you now have to drop labs and tech up. This costs money. It costs time. It is a risk, period. In an objective evaluation, you simply don't do it. So you counter his lrm frigs with your own lrm frigs. If he ever goes carriers, you go light frig, and you counter him without ever having to tech up yourself. He put all his money into expensive units (drone hosts), which means if he loses 1, he loses a significant chunk of change. You put your money into cheap, expendable units. If you lose 1, you don't care. He dropped labs and paid for research. You didn't. He took all the risk, he made all the hard choices, while you made none. This is a recipe for no one ever teching to higher tier units. It is a recipe for lrm and light frig spam exclusively. It is a recipe for BOREDOM.
The point is, higher tech units should be a little "OP" compared to lower tech units. It should be harder to counter higher tech units with lower tech units. Otherwise there is no incentive to tech up. Where there is risk, there should be reward. If you take the risk of teching up, and you succeed, there should be potential reward. This doesn't mean that you just get to wipe the map. But it might mean you should have a little edge.
Going on this rationale, it probably makes more sense to "truly" counter higher tech units with other higher tech units. In other words, the "good" counter to carriers should perhaps be heavy cruisers, or other types of cruisers (I'm not saying this is currently the case, I'm saying perhaps it SHOULD be the case). Now, there should still be a "poor man's counter" - the light frigate. It just shouldn't be as easy or effective a counter as a higher tech counter.
If the carrier is currently "OP," I submit that it is probably close to that "sweet spot" of being "slightly OP." It certainly is not grotesquely OP. If a nerf is forthcoming due to all the complaints, it will likely knock the carrier off the "sweet spot," and may even knock it off of "usable at all."
Discussion question: Does it make sense that higher tech units should be "slightly OP" over lower tech units? Let some of the smarter people answer here. Tell me how I'm right or wrong.
Poll question: Should carriers be left alone for the time being? Should a "truce" be declared on any potential nerfs until a good deal more thought has gone into the matter?
