Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 101
03-31-2010, 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by claydermunch View Post
Not a cruiser of any sort.

A Battleship.
Fed Already HAVE full blow Battleships,, actually Both the Galaxy and the Sov are considered Battleships, The Sov actually better term as a Dreadnought in the Star Trek Canon
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 102
03-31-2010, 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonwulf
Nice retort. I didn't realize I had to do other then state my opinion. Since you decided to be an ass......There is ZERO need for a battleship that would be even slower then the galaxy. People complain now about how slow that thing is even with the extra 1 point of turn they gave us. The Sov is aready considered the "battleship".

How would you balance a "battleship" against the klingons for PVP? There is already precedent for a carrier so that could be easily brought in line and balanced.

You basically want a big slow ship with lots of weapon slots which will force the dev team to come up with not just the fed version but also the klingon version there by hosing balance in PVP all over again and forcing them to spend even more time away from adding content.


oh yeah great idea.
Thers no precedent as the feds don't have a playable carrier in game. Also, just because one side has it doesn't mean the other side needs it. That logic is broken. I would also hope that if they do enter a new type of ship for either factions or new factions they would test them fairly thoroughly so that they balance without a whole bunch of tweaking for other classes.

At the moment the cruisers can be both tanks and support. I would imagine a battleship as being nothing but a tank, and would be thus geared appropriately. I would think added tac and engineering slots and BO's, and a loss of sci slots and BO's.

Its a pain in the ass to tell the difference between this thread and the one begging for fed carriers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 103
03-31-2010, 01:50 PM
As I've said before, all cruisers at tier 4 & 5 already have the physical capacity to carry and launch fighters, the game mechanics in STO just don't give them the ability right now. And with the firepower of the Sovereign Class and I'm guessing the other tier 5 cruisers, they're practically battleships already. STO simply needs to eccentuate those features with trainable skills or hardware slots.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 104
03-31-2010, 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
Thers no precedent as the feds don't have a playable carrier in game. Also, just because one side has it doesn't mean the other side needs it. That logic is broken. I would also hope that if they do enter a new type of ship for either factions or new factions they would test them fairly thoroughly so that they balance without a whole bunch of tweaking for other classes.

At the moment the cruisers can be both tanks and support. I would imagine a battleship as being nothing but a tank, and would be thus geared appropriately. I would think added tac and engineering slots and BO's, and a loss of sci slots and BO's.

Its a pain in the ass to tell the difference between this thread and the one begging for fed carriers.
The precedent is set in 3 ways. Firstly the Akira is a carrier/torpedo boat....we know this is what it was designed for. Secondly The dominon war showed us fighters in the engagment and eluded to them being launched from a fed ship. Thridly the klingon carrier is in game now so cryptic could impliment something similar now considering the game mechanics are there sans a little tweaking.

We....the game do not need bigger and bigger ships, especially at this point, we need the middle fleshed out if anything. What you want isn't a "battleship" we have that in the Sov and star cruiser you want a dreadnaught. Maybe after the add more levels dreadnaughts make sense but they don't now at RA5.

There are a whole host of ships they could add on both sides to flesh out the lower ranks that would make much more sense....ie the excelsior.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 105
03-31-2010, 07:50 PM
Just thought I would chime in and sorta remind you all to the fact they will be giving both sides more ships. Also just want to point out that if a carrier would exist, I would assume it to use the same type of ship docks as the Klink version carrier. So, instead of BoPs I would say Runabouts, and for those little fighters I would say regular old shuttles or something small and similar to the fighters us Klinks get. But, as for the rest keep it the same as the Klinks, and I would go for that, and I play Klink as main.

Also, here are some links to some ships I thought you would all enjoy. Some "could" become classified as a carrier class, but as far as cannon goes I doubt any of these are true cannon ships, but some I think are and all of them look very cool. Hope you enjoy them.

The following ships are from the game Klingon Acadamy, which was released June 21, 2000 by the company 14 Degrees East.
Klink ships: http://www.klingonacademy.com/view.p...hipInfoKlingon
Fed ships: http://www.klingonacademy.com/view.p...InfoFederation
Romulan ships: http://www.klingonacademy.com/view.p...hipInfoRomulan
Gorn ships: http://www.klingonacademy.com/view.php?pg=ShipInfoGorn
Tholian ships: http://www.klingonacademy.com/view.p...hipInfoTholian
Sha'Kurian ships: http://www.klingonacademy.com/view.p...pInfoShakurian

Please note I love the klink ships QuD and Accuser if you look at those, and also I love the fed ship Missouri class and Okinawa.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 106
04-01-2010, 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonwulf
The precedent is set in 3 ways. Firstly the Akira is a carrier/torpedo boat....we know this is what it was designed for. Secondly The dominon war showed us fighters in the engagment and eluded to them being launched from a fed ship. Thridly the klingon carrier is in game now so cryptic could impliment something similar now considering the game mechanics are there sans a little tweaking.

We....the game do not need bigger and bigger ships, especially at this point, we need the middle fleshed out if anything. What you want isn't a "battleship" we have that in the Sov and star cruiser you want a dreadnaught. Maybe after the add more levels dreadnaughts make sense but they don't now at RA5.

There are a whole host of ships they could add on both sides to flesh out the lower ranks that would make much more sense....ie the excelsior.
I think you may miss the point of this thread. It says "Don't add a fed carrier, add a full blown battleship instead."

This isn't the push for carrier thread. We're in this thread to discuss the possibilities of a battleship in place and in answer to a carrier.

I know its confusinf because everyone gets so up tight over this ridiculous carrier issue, but i think its best if we only talk about it in the thread that has to do with it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 107
04-01-2010, 04:43 AM
The simple truth is this:

Adding bigger ships to the federation that trade maneuverability for more firepower and survivability is a response to the factors that currently make space PvP boring - namely having to huddle into a pile waiting to be attacked or squaring off against carriers that have practically no weak spots.

Instead of asking for a ship that plays into the factors that make space PvP sucky and boring in the first place it would be much more sensible to ask for things that make space PvP more fun in the first place.

Also adding larger ships just blows away the frame of reference. cruisers are already absolutely massive, they just don't seem impressive because you're comparing them with Negh'vars and Carriers. If you really want to have a sense of scale for your ship you should ask for more small ships that are worthwhile using, not for even bigger ships.

Lastly, capital ships erode the playstyle for a faction. You see Klingons go into PvP with nothing but carriers, if Federation had one you'd see Federation go in with nothing but carriers. What then? Carrier wars? The real focus should be on making the existing ships cooler, fixing abilities so it isn't all about RSP and FBP, thinking about more ways to make a ships speed into a meaningful factor in combat etc.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 108
04-01-2010, 06:16 AM
Perhaps we are looking at everything wrong. The klink carrier recently got fixed where people could no longer spamm every ship type. Now what you get is a slow moving, slow turning, and huge target that has 3 forward mounts and 3 rear mounts for weapons. Now, if you are like me and use cannons you would probably load up on 3x 180 degree cannons in the front or 3x 360 degree turrets up front and an additional 3x 360 degree turrets for the rear. I was never much of a fan for the carrier to begin with, but I do have one and think it is a situational ship at best. Basically the ships it can deploy now are little more than a stepping stone to the ship that deployed them.

Do I think the carrier is a powerful ship? It still can be, but only for those that really want it to be powerful. I am not specced or have the correct weapons or gear to use a carrier correctly, so I dont and instead fly a BoP mainly with my Negvah on standby.

My post a little ways up I think could be used by the cryptic staff in implimenting more ships tot he game. And to save on time modeling ships simply use a base model for several tiers like they have done with the BoP for example. I would love to see a VoDleh at T3, T4, and T5 as well as a Ulysses at T3, T4, and T5. The basic models would be the same, but things like visible weapon mounts and the size of the saucer section and warp naceles for example would get slightly larger and more distinct in a way.

Do I think the feds should get a carrier? Not really, but if they get one we wouldnt have to read threads about getting them and not getting them anymore.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 109
04-01-2010, 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
I think you may miss the point of this thread. It says "Don't add a fed carrier, add a full blown battleship instead."

This isn't the push for carrier thread. We're in this thread to discuss the possibilities of a battleship in place and in answer to a carrier.

I know its confusinf because everyone gets so up tight over this ridiculous carrier issue, but i think its best if we only talk about it in the thread that has to do with it.
I think you didn't bother to read the post you quoted. We DO NOT need a bigger ship then the current T5 cruisers for the reasons I posted in there. RA5 is fine at the moment.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 110
04-01-2010, 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonwulf
I think you didn't bother to read the post you quoted. We DO NOT need a bigger ship then the current T5 cruisers for the reasons I posted in there. RA5 is fine at the moment.
Who said bigger? I said more powerful, and geared toward combat. Theres the Star Cruiser which has an additional science station at the cost of the assault cruisers tac slot.

What I'm saying is that a fed battleship would be a T5-T6 ship thats the same size or smaller than the current T5's, but takeing the assault cruisers sci console and making a higher ranked tac console and maybe an addition engineering console.
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 12:06 AM.