Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 61
03-22-2010, 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelspawn18 View Post
I've never seen anything canon relating to a Carrier, we dont need one. They are useless in my opinion anyway, all those fighters die way to fast to be useful. Its the big ship itself thats a pain to kill.
what does Canon have to do with anything? it's a game set in the future from the series, they've broken canon tons of times and even use non-canonical things from books and comics, so they can surely use a non-canonical carrier from Star Trek: Invasion game. klingons don't even have carriers in canon.

useless? don't need? it's not about need it's about just having fun and if it's something players want then why not?

and I don't see what your last point has to do with this.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 62
03-22-2010, 08:19 PM
Just cuz people want it doesnt mean we should get it. Carrier is a Klingon thing. Why bore the game down by making everything the same. We should get melee weapons too I guess. It'd be nice to have some kinda of "special" ship class, but it doesnt need to be a carrier.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 63
03-22-2010, 10:21 PM
To put the idea of having a carrier in STO in perspective, imagine this.

What your asking for is the equivalant of having a naval battleship lower gunboats (smaller, faster, more manueverable assuming) into the water at the expense of large guns, ammunition, armor, and fuel for said battleship. Then hoping that the gunboats would be able to take out an equivalently sized battleship with the additional ammo, fuel, powerful and highly accurate guns that can take out these gunboats in up to 3 shots. I really don't see the tactical advantage. Also, the gunboats spread their fire over a wider area of the opposing battleship and do less damage overall.

This sounds neither efficient nor cost effective.

The likening of a starship carrier to a naval carrier isn't the same as the medium of travel between a fighter jet and a carrier are of differing densities and characteristics. A space fighter travels in the same medium as the starship and so lacks any advantage a jet fighter has over surface warship in the ocean.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 64
03-22-2010, 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
To put the idea of having a carrier in STO in perspective, imagine this.

What your asking for is the equivalant of having a naval battleship lower gunboats (smaller, faster, more manueverable assuming) into the water at the expense of large guns, ammunition, armor, and fuel for said battleship. Then hoping that the gunboats would be able to take out an equivalently sized battleship with the additional ammo, fuel, powerful and highly accurate guns that can take out these gunboats in up to 3 shots. I really don't see the tactical advantage. Also, the gunboats spread their fire over a wider area of the opposing battleship and do less damage overall.

This sounds neither efficient nor cost effective.

The likening of a starship carrier to a naval carrier isn't the same as the medium of travel between a fighter jet and a carrier are of differing densities and characteristics. A space fighter travels in the same medium as the starship and so lacks any advantage a jet fighter has over surface warship in the ocean.
this has nothing to do with adding fed carriers at all, can you come up with some real legitimate reasons why you don't want people to have this or are you just a butthurt klingon that flies a carrier and upset about the nerfs or don't want federation players to have the same toys as you or something? I just don't get it, what's wrong with you? you are obviously tracking this topic and pop in every time someone else /signs it and spout some useless garbage.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 65
03-23-2010, 03:34 AM
Theres only one reason why, ITS A KLINGON SPECIAL SHIP CLASS!



Jesus, let them just come up with something diffrent for Federation.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 66
03-23-2010, 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelspawn18 View Post
Theres only one reason why, ITS A KLINGON SPECIAL SHIP CLASS!



Jesus, let them just come up with something diffrent for Federation.
but it's not.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 67
03-23-2010, 07:02 AM
You all can have your battleships and carriers. I'd prefer a T5 version of the Tactical Escort with 5 front fittings and 2 rear. The Defiant was too cool not to use as an endgame escort.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 68
03-23-2010, 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
this has nothing to do with adding fed carriers at all, can you come up with some real legitimate reasons why you don't want people to have this or are you just a butthurt klingon that flies a carrier and upset about the nerfs or don't want federation players to have the same toys as you or something? I just don't get it, what's wrong with you? you are obviously tracking this topic and pop in every time someone else /signs it and spout some useless garbage.
Don't you have something better to do than be an internet tough guy on a star trek forum for discussion? Like, idk, go to work? Or ya know, get a life? i know its a stretch to maybe think that I just gave a reason why there shouldn't be klingon carriers too.

This is a discussion forum, like all the other forums, I participate in said discussion giving my POV. If you can't handle that, GTFO.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 69
03-23-2010, 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
but it's not.
So theres another faction in the game with carriers thats playable? Geez wish I knew of this fabled lost faction. O my, why are we sitting here discussing the merits of spending Dev time on federation carriers in the game when another faction besides the klingons have them. Think they'll get nerfed with the klingon one too? Or was it just not OP enough to warrant a nerf bat beating?

:p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 70
03-23-2010, 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
Don't you have something better to do than be an internet tough guy on a star trek forum for discussion? Like, idk, go to work? Or ya know, get a life? i know its a stretch to maybe think that I just gave a reason why there shouldn't be klingon carriers too.

This is a discussion forum, like all the other forums, I participate in said discussion giving my POV. If you can't handle that, GTFO.
where am I acting like a tough guy? and I posted that from work actually heh
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 07:47 AM.