Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
10-25-2010, 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
Historically, we never had space-faring vessels capable of conducting warfare in space.

Historically, there were long times when there were no carriers at all. That was because we didn't have planes. We were quite capable of building smaller boats, but no one thought it would be advantegous to carry a lot of small boats with cannons and send them to fight instead of the larger ship. Boats were used to get people on the ground or maybe get someone aboard another ship.

And that's exactly the situation in space. A small spacecraft can reach exactly the same areas a large spacecraft can reach.
The only reason to use small spacecraft is because you can't afford large spacecraft. Or your transporters are down and you need to get someone on the ground.
Also aircraft and the ships that carry them operate in different mediums (air and water) and are therefore affected by different restriction inherent to those mediums.
This affect fuel consumption, range maneuverability and speed.
However in space, both the carrier and the fighter it carries are in the same medium.
There is also the problem in Star Trek that speed is not affected by size or mass but by available power so fighter coult theoretically be outrun by larger ships unlike the situation we have here on earth where I have yet to see a naval vessel that outruns a modern-day figher-bomber.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
10-25-2010, 07:32 AM
No other Faction is getting a carrier. This has already been asked and answered and Cryptic has stated this is
what it is and will always be. The Klingon are the only Faction that ill ever have a carrier. The Jupiter class is not a carrier its a Dreadnought like the galaxy X.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
10-25-2010, 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenstarr
What I resent is the idea that the Klings refuse to admit there is a real imbalance to PVP where the carrier is concerned at this time. A step in the right direction was to give the defiant cloak and the reason I came back to the game. We can sit here and argue Canon all day long but in the end PVP has to be realistically balanced or one side will always have an advantage and the devs will forever be nerfing this or that to compensate.
.
I see no imbalance in the carrier. I find the carrier no more unkilliable than a well-built and played Cruiser or sceince ship. I find the plethora of pets a carrier creates no more disturbing enviroment than Photonic Fleet, Tatical Fleet support, mines or Boarding parties.
Like all things related to combat, new tactics must be created to deal with new threats.
Unlike all things combat, a cry for nerf will not change the nature of pvp and said changes will not propel average players into better players. Cryptic can not balance pvp to make all players of equal skill.

Gratz on your knowledge of the name enterprise, I was actually shocked to learn so many vessel held that name through history, especually that the Confederates had a spotter ballon named enterprise.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
10-25-2010, 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS_Enterprise_J
No other Faction is getting a carrier. This has already been asked and answered and Cryptic has stated this is
what it is and will always be. The Klingon are the only Faction that ill ever have a carrier. The Jupiter class is not a carrier its a Dreadnought like the galaxy X.
scimitar launches fighters, breen have a carrier, dont know why but i can see the tholians having a carrier, undine have a ship that spawns the smaller ships at a rapid rate
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
10-25-2010, 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Also aircraft and the ships that carry them operate in different mediums (air and water) and are therefore affected by different restriction inherent to those mediums.
This affect fuel consumption, range maneuverability and speed.
However in space, both the carrier and the fighter it carries are in the same medium.
There is also the problem in Star Trek that speed is not affected by size or mass but by available power so fighter coult theoretically be outrun by larger ships unlike the situation we have here on earth where I have yet to see a naval vessel that outruns a modern-day figher-bomber.

Then why have a klingon Carrier?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
10-25-2010, 11:26 AM
i don't like the idea of carriers for feds - i feel it's not fitting. Carriers are one of the few unique traits klings have atm. That said, it may be necessary to nerf it for pvp balancing issues -

regards
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
10-25-2010, 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
I see no imbalance in the carrier. I find the carrier no more unkilliable than a well-built and played Cruiser or sceince ship. I find the plethora of pets a carrier creates no more disturbing enviroment than Photonic Fleet, Tatical Fleet support, mines or Boarding parties.
Like all things related to combat, new tactics must be created to deal with new threats.
Unlike all things combat, a cry for nerf will not change the nature of pvp and said changes will not propel average players into better players. Cryptic can not balance pvp to make all players of equal skill.

Gratz on your knowledge of the name enterprise, I was actually shocked to learn so many vessel held that name through history, especually that the Confederates had a spotter ballon named enterprise.
Lets take chess as an example. What if suddenly the King could move around like the queen however only the Black side could have this power. But the white side could not. Would you say then that you can not balance chess to make all players equal skill?

True skill is when each side has the same powers and equipement available and yet one side still prevails over the other side with out being given a handicap. A chess player knows this fact.

The bottom line is the Carrier was given to the klings to appease them for their lack of content. Nothing more. It was a bone thrown their way.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
10-25-2010, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenstarr
Then why have a klingon Carrier?
Faction diversity.

That aside, fighters are quite simply cheap, and the Empire is (a) short on resources and (b) doesn't care as much for the lives of their pilots as the Federation. Whilst Starfleet has neither need nor agenda to build such things and would likely continue to focus on established classes that can do exploration as well as defense.

I agree, however, that carriers should've rather been left out of the game altogether. The Negh'var should have been the largest vessel, and it doesn't feel right to see it dwarved by the Vo'Quv. As fun and as interesting as its idea is, it simply doesn't quite feel right for ST.

And no, STO isn't chess. Factions should have more difference than just colours. Matter of taste, obviously, but I just think it's very boring and unimaginative if everyone has the same stuff.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
10-25-2010, 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Faction diversity.

That aside, fighters are quite simply cheap, and the Empire is (a) short on resources and (b) doesn't care as much for the lives of their pilots as the Federation. Whilst Starfleet has neither need nor agenda to build such things and would likely continue to focus on established classes that can do exploration as well as defense.

I agree, however, that carriers should've rather been left out of the game altogether. The Negh'var should have been the largest vessel, and it doesn't feel right to see it dwarved by the Vo'Quv. As fun and as interesting as its idea is, it simply doesn't quite feel right for ST.

And no, STO isn't chess. Factions should have more difference than just colours. Matter of taste, obviously, but I just think it's very boring and unimaginative if everyone has the same stuff.
It was a huge mistake to put a carrier in the game first place. As a side note a carrier is not only a tool to launch first strike but also to keep peace. So with that in mind it would be completely logical for the feds to have a carrier to counter a kling carrier or any other races carriers all in the name of keeping the peace thru deterrence.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
10-25-2010, 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenstarr
It was a huge mistake to put a carrier in the game first place. As a side note a carrier is not only a tool to launch first strike but also to keep peace. So with that in mind it would be completely logical for the feds to have a carrier to counter a kling carrier or any other races carriers all in the name of keeping the peace thru deterrence.
Since when is a mobile attack force something that keeps peace?
It enforces peace.
That is not the same.
I will not and cannot get into a political debate about how deterrecne is not the same as pure defense.
However I'd like to point out that the Federation has never used something like deterrence anywhere.
Again, I have no problem with the Feds getting a ship that can carry fighters, but it should be something
very much unlike the Klingon version because the Federation does not build ships for offensive/invasion purposes.
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 04:46 PM.