Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
07-09-2011, 06:23 PM
Am I missing something here?

Why is the thought of a Federation carrier so offensive? I'm really not making the connection. Sure we haven't seen carriers in Trek, but the Klingons have them in STO. Is it really a stretch for the Federation to have one?

I'm just...confused at the hostility.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
07-11-2011, 09:08 PM
theres a creation from stl that i would love as a carrier but its about 200 times larger than a galaxy... no joke i mean it and it does really NEEEED a texture update and size reduction but ... http://http://legacy.filefront.com/s.../File/101217/3 JUST CLICK SEARCH...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
07-11-2011, 10:00 PM
Hey, that's what they could do with the new Enterprise-F... Make it a carrier!





*runs and hides very far away*
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
07-11-2011, 10:05 PM
Heretic stated in other thread that there are NO PLANS for fed carrier. So stop it, its awful idea. Too many crap and NPCs are already flying in space, until that is fixed...please NOOOOOOOOO FED CARRIER !
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
07-11-2011, 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
Carriers
Some people love them, some people hate them. Some people think they are reasonable in the IP, some don't. For the forseeable future we do see a role for them to play in the KDF. Similarly, we do not currently have any plans to give carriers to the Federation.
Taken from the KDF fleetyards sub forum on carrier R&D topic.

Side note, why would the federation build a carrier? Kill things better, like the borg, Akira/defiant. Explore the galaxy among other things, cruisers. Get lost in the delta quadrant, science vessels. Carriers? IDK I don't see them building a ship that deploys other ships. Maybe I'm crazy.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
07-11-2011, 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koopa27 View Post
Taken from the KDF fleetyards sub forum on carrier R&D topic.

Side note, why would the federation build a carrier? Kill things better, like the borg, Akira/defiant. Explore the galaxy among other things, cruisers. Get lost in the delta quadrant, science vessels. Carriers? IDK I don't see them building a ship that deploys other ships. Maybe I'm crazy.
It's not just that they wouldn't build something that launches something.
Carriers are offensive vessels.
They are either used for "power projection" (AKA send it somewhere to intimidate someone into doing what you want) or as first-strike unit.
Last time I checked the Federation does neither.
Also "carrier" on the Klingon side is a misnamer since it's a mobile outpost and invasion platform or in other terms a Wasp class troop transport and a super-carrier in one.
Calling the Defiant an escort was already a stretch and a PR stunt, what would you call something that big and that clearly intended as an offensive vessel?
"The escorted one"?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
07-12-2011, 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmendel46 View Post
Am I missing something here?

Why is the thought of a Federation carrier so offensive? I'm really not making the connection. Sure we haven't seen carriers in Trek, but the Klingons have them in STO. Is it really a stretch for the Federation to have one?

I'm just...confused at the hostility.
Well, if by 'why are people hostile' you mean 'why do peole disagree?' You generally have four different reasons for disagreeing with Fed carriers. First you have those who believe Carriers being exclusive to the KDF is a needed draw to their meager half faction. Second, you have those who believe there is already too much NPC trash cluttering up the galaxy. Third, you have people who can neither conceive of a use for carriers outside of a very particular niche and who also can not conceive of the Federation creating a ship to fill that niche. Lastly, you have people who think carriers are just counter to Star Trek in any form, and a Fed carrier would be continuing the mistake already made with Klingon carriers.

If by 'why are people hostile' you mean, 'why do people try to shut down the debate with eyeroll emoticons and feigned exhaustion made all the more hypocritical by their taking time out to actively participate in a topic?' I'd only say there's really a small minority doing that and you're going to get that kind of response any time you raise a topic on a public forum.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
07-12-2011, 05:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
If by 'why are people hostile' you mean, 'why do people try to shut down the debate with eyeroll emoticons and feigned exhaustion made all the more hypocritical by their taking time out to actively participate in a topic?' I'd only say there's really a small minority doing that and you're going to get that kind of response any time you raise a topic on a public forum.
Funny, you didn't really include the "why" part in your response here. The reason why people get downright hostile is because they hate it when some new guy signs up, marches onto the forums and starts a new thread about a subject that has already been flogged for months like the proverbial dead horse.

There should be a popup on every game forum for all newcomers that shows up every time they log on for the first month that says:

"DO NOT START A NEW THREAD SUGGESTING ANYTHING OR ASKING WHY A FEATURE OF THE GAME IS THE WAY IT IS. LURK FOR YOUR FIRST MONTH, REPLY TO OTHER THREADS AND GET THE LAY OF THE LAND FIRST. STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT ANY GAME FEATURE WILL GET YOU INTO TROUBLE."
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
07-12-2011, 05:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forgotten-Nemesis View Post
Funny, you didn't really include the "why" part in your response here. The reason why people get downright hostile is because they hate it when some new guy signs up, marches onto the forums and starts a new thread about a subject that has already been flogged for months like the proverbial dead horse.

There should be a popup on every game forum for all newcomers that shows up every time they log on for the first month that says:

"DO NOT START A NEW THREAD SUGGESTING ANYTHING OR ASKING WHY A FEATURE OF THE GAME IS THE WAY IT IS. LURK FOR YOUR FIRST MONTH, REPLY TO OTHER THREADS AND GET THE LAY OF THE LAND FIRST. STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT ANY GAME FEATURE WILL GET YOU INTO TROUBLE."
Ah, my mistake, I will rewrite my final paragraph here and include the "why" part. *Ahem*

If by 'why are people hostile' you mean, 'why do people try to shut down the debate with eyeroll emoticons and feigned exhaustion made all the more hypocritical by their taking time out to actively participate in a topic?' I'd first say there's really a small minority doing that and you're going to get that kind of response any time you raise a topic on a public forum. Why the minority feels the need to do that, I don't know for sure becuase it seems like an unreasonable response. Others have tried to explain it and it seems to boil down to a basic misunderstanding regarding the purpose of feedback forums.

You see, you and I both know a feedback forum is a place where players go to provide their own personal feedback regarding a game. Many people will have the same feedback and they will post agreement to certain proposals, others will have differing views and they may post reasons why they believe that feedback to be a bad idea. Occasionally, when a post providing feedback has been inactive for too long it will move into obscurity, generally this happens once it reaches the second page. It is then common practice, and even acceptable, to post a new thread providing personal feedback especially when you are a new player weighing in on the topic for the first time. This is good because it lets the game developers know where you stand personally, in essence, it gives them your feedback.

But other players misunderstand the nature of feedback forums, I'm not entirely sure what they think feedback forums are for, but they come up with strange ideas like, 'if a topic has been discussed at length and nothing new can be said about it, the topic should be dropped.' Which would be fine if this were a discussion forum, and not a feedback forum.

There, I hope that helps you out.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
07-12-2011, 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Actually, to be accurate, the answer hasn't been "no" it's been, "We don't have any plans to introduce it at this time." The feedback given by subscribers on this topic will help determine whether this idea makes it into plans in the future. Now, seeing that we're in a feedback forum for Federation Ships and the posters here are providing Feedback about a Federation ship, I would suggest that you either contribute to the topic or find a more productive way to spend your time.
I am fairly sure Cryptic has no plans at this time to introduce light sabers, either.

This game already has too many Carriers. I really like Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, but they are their own franchises with different rules, and there Fighters are standard and make sense.

Another topic that often comes up is Full 3D Space Combat, and Cryptic isn't interested in doing that either.
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 09:59 AM.