Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Klingon Fleetyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I don't mean to sound "gloom and doom" but my instincts tell me that the upcoming changes to carrier operations and design has some inherent flaws built into them that are based on bias and flawed perspective, and not reality.

I will start with the #1 issue on my mind -- and I may not get any further that that due to time, but we will see.

One of the most important planned changes is going to be a tweaking of the carrier mechanics to reduce playing field "spam" The idea is to reduce the number of fighters or craft a carrier can launch, but compensate that reduced number by making the individual craft tougher.

Here are the problems witih that logic...

1. No offense, Federation Captains, but the truth is that in PvP, with the vessels you have now, Federation players are capable of deploying just as much "spam" as a carrier can. Photonic Fleet, Scorpion fighters, the various special ship abilities such as saucer seperation, multi-vector assault, and the hologram module, and...the biggest culprit of all -- mine layers -- doubles and triples the amount of "spam" on the playing field. In fact, I suspect that all of the complaints a lot of us are hearing from the Federation side is related more to the effects that "friendly spam" has on their lag, rather than carrier craft. However, nothing is being done to address this aspect of the battlefield clutter -- instead, carriers are being punished as the primary culprit.

2. Toughening up the deployable craft is not going to achieve any sort of parity or mitigate the loss of numbers. This is because as any PvPer knows when it comes to opposing a carrier, you ignore the pets and go after the mothership, because if you can kill the mother ship, every craft deployed from that ship instantly dies. One rock, multiple birds. The only thing that would possibly change that equation is if the deployable craft stayed on the board of play after destruction of the carrier...but I suspect that would be somewhat difficult to accomplish game-wise.

3. Less deployable craft means less weapons, which in turn means a DPS reduction. Not too long ago, carrier deployable craft took a massive DPS reduction hit. As far as I know -- and I freely admit that I might be wrong -- but I sort of doubt that the deployable craft will get a DPS boost to balance anywhere between a 30-50% loss in combat craft deployed in the air.

Now...my philosophy is to offer up solutions, not just problems. So -- I am not saying "don't do it!" what I am saying is that if you are going to reduce the number of deployable craft, which reduces a carrier's combat capability no matter how you slice and dice it, then some other changes need to be considered to balance that loss. Here are some ideas --

1. If you reduce the number of craft, then your carriers essentially end up changing roles - this is especially true of the Vo'Qov, which, of all of the carriers, is more of a "stand off" type of launch platform. Instead of being a stand-off support platform for her fighters, a Vo'Qov will need to enter battle as a significant combatant to balance the loss of weaponry and deployable craft. To that end, that means that for the Vo'qov, some changes are going to have to be made. Here are a few suggestions:

a. Provide the Vo'qov with an additional weapons bank in the forward arc, like the Karfi has.
b. Provide the Vo'qov with an innate armor resistance buff to help resist damage.
c. Give the Vo'qov a 2 point turn increase.

I am basically out of time...but my core point is essentially this -- all of these changes are being done, and according to another thread, no changes are being anticipated for the Vo'Qov simply because it is considered a good ship as it is -- I also think it is a good ship, but I also realize that when you make changes on the scale of what is being planned for deployable craft, then the role that the ship plays also changes, and with less fighter craft, then logically, the carrier becomes more of a direct combatant, more like a cruiser, in fact, with hanger bays. The Vo'Qov is ill-suited to go toe to toe with anything in that fashion.

Just some thoughts for a Tuesday morning.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
10-25-2011, 06:42 AM
I agree.
Due to the fact that some fought against multiple carriers early in there release and the huge number of pets that they could create, the VoQ has for ever carried the Spam moniker.
Its no longer even remotely true and has done nothing but see nerf after buff after nerf given to the VoQ.

Carrier spam is bad but double Scramble effects are good evidently is the philosophy
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
10-26-2011, 01:34 AM
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
10-26-2011, 04:46 AM
the way to deal with KDF carrier "spam" should be to release a UFoP carrier :-p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
10-26-2011, 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
To be honest, after I changed my targeting options to exclude the ability to target NPCs and pets, my spam issues have disapeered leaving only SS/AMS as the main spam.
Now infact I have to target any NPC/Pet spam via mouse pointer if I wish to shoot them, and can now TAB target through Player toons in PvP with no issue.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
10-26-2011, 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
To be honest, after I changed my targeting options to exclude the ability to target NPCs and pets, my spam issues have disapeered leaving only SS/AMS as the main spam.
Now infact I have to target any NPC/Pet spam via mouse pointer if I wish to shoot them, and can now TAB target through Player toons in PvP with no issue.
Well my targerting issues with Carriers has been resolved that way, true...
But honestly, targerting sucks enough without pets. Some "Kind" of crossair to pick targerts would be a great addition.
My personal second issue with carriers and their spam is a completly diffrent one: Their sole presence turn pvp into a slideshow. And I know others share that problem.

And to make that clear... I dont want carriers to be nerfed. But that is still anoying.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
10-26-2011, 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
How is this going to make Carriers more fun to play? The niche for this ship type is to unleash a swarm of gnats on your target. That's the whole point of the class. If you cut those down, what's the point? What is our motivation for flying one?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
10-26-2011, 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
Um...if spam is a concern at all, why did ya just release even more ships that launch fighters and such on Tribble?
Not that I mind, some of them are really nice...but the whole PvP spam hate crowd is gonna flip out over even more shps with fighters.
Myself, love carriers....bring em on.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
10-26-2011, 02:02 PM
My view on it is that in pvp there is a crowd against the carriers but on other hand nerfing them will cause an uproar when the STF's let KDF players join fed teams they won't like it so much if their teammates are nerfed Like some others have said its *spam* is what makes the carrier used because mainly a carrier user usually goes all beams because torpedos and cannons are not functional due to its turning speed but if they are going to be nerfed I'd expect that the turning power be adjusted to the ship because right now the ships are balanced super slow turning with massive spam firepower (the beams are just the fluff for some energy draining).

The only way I can see the federation giving them something that will fit in line with a carrier is some how giving the federation side functioning outposts like DS9 like as it was in the series was super slow moving but had the ability to move. I'm not sure how this could ever be implemented since they can't go to warp unless there was some kind of balance components like having to be in a full team to go to warp to drag the outpost inside the warp field(or quantum slip stream) of a team being only one team could have one in a group. Being kind of skills it would have like an inherent FAW3 and Torp Spread 3 and 3 launch ports if it was like DS9 say one that launches runabouts, fighters, and delta flyers. I mostly play KDF but I just thought i'd add this an idea that might work one day to not gimp anyone on abilities for each faction. Biggest problem I do have with pets on either faction is how against certain ships they get too close and almost impossible to keep them from exploding to ships such as borg ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
10-26-2011, 02:08 PM
Don't forget to add the new deployable turrets into the pot.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 PM.