Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 81
11-22-2010, 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zutty View Post
Why? WTF?!

Reasons that Feds should get a carrier...

1) Its a massive imbalance in the game. The Vo'quv gets more hull, shields, and crew than any other ships, and has an imbalanced BO layout compared to other classes. YES i know it cant turn, but the sheer strength of the ship more than makes up for that.

2) Pets mount up to huge numbers quickly and give an enormous advantage to whoever can stay in one spot the longest. There is no answer to this on the Fed side, as you cant kill pets faster than they are spawned. The only way would be to fight pets with pets.

3) I want to spam Klinks with fighters so they can see what it FRICKIN' WELL FEELS LIKE.

There is absolutely no reason why the Federation should not get a carrier. The game is unbalanced. END OF.
And what follows from your points:

A) Cryptic needs to look at the game balance and find a way to ensure that Carriers are as strong and useful as other ships, and not more or less so.

B) Cryptic has to improve the targeting system in its game.

These seem all noble and valid goals and I fully support them.

I don't support making the problem worse by having everyone suffer under the targeting issue or by giving each faction an "uber"-ship class. If Carriers are OP, they need a nerf. If Pets cause targeting issues, we need a way to reduce the number of pets in the game (without making them useless), and / or fix what is causing the targeting issues.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 82
11-22-2010, 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zutty View Post
Why? WTF?!

Reasons that Feds should get a carrier...

1) Its a massive imbalance in the game. The Vo'quv gets more hull, shields, and crew than any other ships, and has an imbalanced BO layout compared to other classes. YES i know it cant turn, but the sheer strength of the ship more than makes up for that.

Its a sci ship with a ltc tac, you have the excelsior with a commander eng and lt com tac and it can turn

2) Pets mount up to huge numbers quickly and give an enormous advantage to whoever can stay in one spot the longest. There is no answer to this on the Fed side, as you cant kill pets faster than they are spawned. The only way would be to fight pets with pets.

the swarm fighters cant survive even basic aoe like fire at will scatter volley or gravity wells or eject warp plasma, the bops are as weak as photonic fleet bops, they also cant sustain any real hits.

3) I want to spam Klinks with fighters so they can see what it FRICKIN' WELL FEELS LIKE.

if your pc cant handle multiple carriers swarming fighters on max turn the settings down or buy a pc built of gaming grade parts within the last 5 years.

There is absolutely no reason why the Federation should not get a carrier. The game is unbalanced. END OF.

feds dont have carriers, cryptic wont get cbs to magically declare feds have carriers and approve them when they never had carriers, peragrin fighters were always stand alone attack shuttles based on star bases, not ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 83
11-22-2010, 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentStryder
We just lost our allegedly unique science ship we should get a carrier in return, or a raider (ie BOP) in return.
This is true

But I still dont want a carrier.. I also want KDF carriers fixed, so the FvK matches isnt 80% PvE
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 84
11-22-2010, 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lariat
That is what is amazing to me. You say that logic dictates that Federation Carriers don't exist. Which ignores the fact that fighters are depicted in several episodes, operating away from starbases. How did they get there do you think? Ahem..... Carriers. Its amazing that you guys all ignore that one fact. After all, its logical.

Sure its warlike, but look at the chronology. War is here. The Federation had to respond.

To reiterate my basic statement, if you don't like Carriers, don't play one. Stop shouting down people who want one. Stop trying to dictate how others experience the game.
This clearly proves you've not actually been reading the contents of this thread or any of the other carrier threads otherwise you would not have to ask this question.
Appearently you entered the discussion without reading the previous pages.
1. Fighters have Warp-drive.
2. Fighters can travel inside the warpfield of a larger ship without problems.
3. When you actually look at the episodes where we see the fleets leaving their staging are
we see the fighters are already deployed at that point.
So did the carriers deploy them for tha occasion of the fleet "getting underway", recovered them before goint to warp and then re-deployed at the target?
That's probably the dumbest strategy I've heard of in a long while.

When you look at the information on the Klingon carrier you'll also motice it's nothing like the carriers we have today.
It's a mobile command post, drydock, invasion platform and hospital ship.
The Federation does not build invasion platforms.
It is more likely that they'd put their fighters, if they really needed long-distance transportation onto existing ship with sufficient hangar capacity like the Galaxy instead of designing a completely new class of ship for the occasion.
Besides what do you use them for when the war is over?
The Galaxies can be equipped with a normal complement of shuttlecraft and sent onto exploration missions like before, the Defiants you can at least use for patrols.
But what do you use a mobile outpost with a full complement of ground troops for?
Besides the Federation could only use the Defiant because it was officially called an escort even though it was a warship.
Such a publicity stunt may work with such a small ship.
But how do you officially call a dedicated carrier?
"The escorted one"?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 85
11-22-2010, 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhansWrath
feds dont have carriers, cryptic wont get cbs to magically declare feds have carriers and approve them when they never had carriers, peragrin fighters were always stand alone attack shuttles based on star bases, not ships.
Canon is totally irrelevant here...

A) Klingons do not have carriers. The Vo'quv class was invented by Cryptic.
B) Klingons dont even have fighters. They used BoPs in the Dominion war.
C) The Federation DOES have fighters, and the Akira class is stated as being a "carrier/gunship" by its creator at ILM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Appearently you entered the discussion without reading the previous pages.
1. Fighters have Warp-drive.
2. Fighters can travel inside the warpfield of a larger ship without problems.
3. When you actually look at the episodes where we see the fleets leaving their staging are
we see the fighters are already deployed at that point.
So did the carriers deploy them for tha occasion of the fleet "getting underway", recovered them before goint to warp and then re-deployed at the target?
That's probably the dumbest strategy I've heard of in a long while.
Again, you are completely missing the point. Its not about what canon says, we have already deviated massively from that by giving the Klinks a carrier in the first place.

BoPs have warp drive too, so why are they launched from a carrier?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully
And what follows from your points:

A) Cryptic needs to look at the game balance and find a way to ensure that Carriers are as strong and useful as other ships, and not more or less so.

B) Cryptic has to improve the targeting system in its game.

These seem all noble and valid goals and I fully support them.

I don't support making the problem worse by having everyone suffer under the targeting issue or by giving each faction an "uber"-ship class. If Carriers are OP, they need a nerf. If Pets cause targeting issues, we need a way to reduce the number of pets in the game (without making them useless), and / or fix what is causing the targeting issues.
I can agree with this. There are two problems with balance..

A) The Vo'quv is OP. Either Nerf it, or give the Feds a dreadnought with similar tanking ability
B) Carrier pets are OP. Nerf the pets, reduce their numbers (a lower cap), buff photonic fleet, or just give Feds their own pets
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 86
11-22-2010, 05:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zutty View Post
A) The Vo'quv is OP. Either Nerf it, or give the Feds a dreadnought with similar tanking ability
No, the either part is just wrong. The Vo'quv doesn't tank better then a Star Cruiser, so we don't need a ship with a similar tanking ability, and if the ship is OP, adding another OP ship doesn't solve any problems. What is with all the other ships, should we now only play dreadnoughts and carriers to ensure we're not gimped? That's not trying to fix game balance, that's giving up.

Quote:
B) Carrier pets are OP. Nerf the pets, reduce their numbers (a lower cap),
That would be a workable solution - any "fix" to the Carrier should probably look at reducing the numbers of pets you can spawn. (Should this make Carriers underpowered, we should buff their pets resilience and/or firepower.)

Quote:
buff photonic fleet, or just give Feds their own pets
Buffing Photonic Fleet buffs a lot of Carrier Captains, too - because they are Science Captain and thus have also access to Photonic Fleet.
Photonic Fleet is part of the undesired "PvEvP" and the targeting problems. Improving it won't change that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 87
11-22-2010, 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by claydermunch View Post
The point is not if we should get a heavy duty warship or not.

The point is that the ideas of carriers in star trek and sto are idiotic and have been utterly undermined by the mediums themselves.

In DS9, the premier fighter user, we saw them get slaughtered without doing anything worthwhile.

In STO, the game that deploys them again for greater use, has also introduced a technology that makes the idea of a fighter carrier asinine.


Thats my gripe.

And the fact that people adamantly want to extend this BS by giving carriers to all factions.
im not saying give us a carrier im say how about instead of a carrier give us a battleship that is EQUAL to a Klingon carrier or possibilty of a alterentive Federation carrier.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 88
11-22-2010, 05:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
No, the either part is just wrong. The Vo'quv doesn't tank better then a Star Cruiser, so we don't need a ship with a similar tanking ability, and if the ship is OP, adding another OP ship doesn't solve any problems. What is with all the other ships, should we now only play dreadnoughts and carriers to ensure we're not gimped? That's not trying to fix game balance, that's giving up.


That would be a workable solution - any "fix" to the Carrier should probably look at reducing the numbers of pets you can spawn. (Should this make Carriers underpowered, we should buff their pets resilience and/or firepower.)


Buffing Photonic Fleet buffs a lot of Carrier Captains, too - because they are Science Captain and thus have also access to Photonic Fleet.
Photonic Fleet is part of the undesired "PvEvP" and the targeting problems. Improving it won't change that.
We will never get rid of the PvE crap in PvP.. Therefore the best course of action is to limit the number of pets, but increase their resilience..

Prior to the Carrier improvements, their pets were a joke at best.. They needed to be improved, the problem is that instead of increasing the value of the individual pet, they did the worst thing (imo) - Increased their numbers.

Id much rather see quality over quantity:

Make each pet stronger, decrease their numbers (by 1/3 as a test), and add a limited control panel for them.. Somethign like

Attack Target (obvious function)
Defend Target (equally obvious)
Patrol (Patrol an area between the carrier and its current target)
Return (to the carrier)

In addition to this a option to set their aggressiveness:

Offensive : +30% Damage and Firerate
Balanced : +15% Damage and Speed
Defensive : +30% Speed and Defense
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 89
11-22-2010, 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
But how do you officially call a dedicated carrier?
"The escorted one"?
fridge logic win is here.
thanks for giving me this laugh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zutty View Post
C) The Federation DOES have fighters, and the Akira class is stated as being a "carrier/gunship" by its creator at ILM.

That person can say whatever he wants, that does not make it so.

The Akira was depicted as a cruiser, heavy cruiser even. Not as a carrier. Not as a ship carrying 15 torpedo launchers either.



STOP quoting what that guys said to tell us the akira is supposed to be this and that. What he said and what at last materialized on screen is notably different.
Its especially vexing considering you people are supposed to be star trek fans.

I would have expected you to at least have, yknow, watched star trek.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 90
11-22-2010, 05:47 AM
NO carriers please.

The pets cause lag for the majority.
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 07:08 PM.