Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 121
07-25-2011, 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by piwright42 View Post
As the person you "corrected" I would like to say that you wrote it clumsy. Sorry I scored perfect on the reading comprehension portion of the ASSET college entry exam and I read your post multiple times in an effort not to insult your intelligence before I posted my first comment. Do me the favor of not insulting mine. I am an English major who is also working on a creative writing certificate.



Word for word what you wrote. Just because you know what you intended when you wrote it does not mean that the combination and order of the words you selected convey your intent.

What you basically wrote is that STO is JJ 'verse. Sorry but you need to show patience for those who can't read your mind.
I am sorry you're unable to understand properly what I wrote and that you think you are better than me. I am also sorry that you feel the need to fall back on and use your "experience" as a way to insult me just because you cannot or could not comprehend what I had wrote. More power to you!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 122
07-26-2011, 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keioel View Post
Well traditionally Starfleet hasn't built or used carriers because they are in a fleet of starships pure combat platforms. Every other function that a Federation carrier could accomplish in peace is easily accomplished by their cruisers and below. However, with the warships currently being built to combat the Borg and the recent threats and conflicts that have rocked the Federation I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't have built carriers. A carrier allows for a smaller percentage of materials and men to be lost in conflict while providing a huge increase in combat power, even in the Star Trek universe that would be true.

If you're opposed to it simply for gameplay reasons then I can respect that, but if you're arguing that it shouldn't be included because it is in opposition to the ideals or seen ship classes of the Federation then your argument is illogical. The Federation wasn't seen making warships in modern times till the Defiant or dreadnoughts till the Sovereign. If we used some of your arguments in opposition to a carrier and DS9 had never happened the Federation would lack any ships designed for combat heavier or more heavily armed then a Cruiser.
A carrier using less materials and people? As far as I can tell those little fighters you send out there to get blown up have at least 1 pilot maybe even 2 or 3... also a carrier would need much more crew since it would be a larger ship and need more back up crew and piolts for the fighters so in genoral carriers would have larger crews then say a galaxy. Also since they are larger they take more resorces to bild. Flat out defient beats most carriers for a few resons 1. They are smaller which should meen harder to hit as well as less resorces used the produce the ship that then meens a cheeper ship can be more mass produced as well so you could simply swarm a carrier with fast ships and obliterate it. 2. If a Defient was destroyed less then 100 people are killed, if a huge carrier is destroyed... thusands of people could be killed since carriers offten have a larger crew. It seems an overall less efective tactic to use. (carriers arnt invinsable ether).

From a gammer stand point I dont think feds need a carrier for these resons:

1. Dont ruin it for the kligons... just since they have em doesnt meen you NEED them
2. Carriers in game are a relitivly week ship and only any good if the captain knowns what they are doing.


A few other notes: Sov is considerd a heavy explorer not even a battleship... Also I can understand why the defient should be exploring the Gamma qudrent in DS9 for 1 reson: couse they are at war with the dominion and it would be stupid to send a big exploration ship into enamy taratory. But how smart would it be to send a warship into delta volanis or somthing go up to a system and say hey need any help? Dont you think that would be a bit intimadating? Not a very good ship for that and being a carrier would be less long tearm the a Galaxy.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 123
07-27-2011, 11:30 PM
Seriously? have you studied Fed Designs at all? Sure Klinks getting a Carrier makes sense, from a number of standpoints, even beyond game "balance" issues. But Feds? Closest thing I know of they have to a Carrier was the Akira, which was originally designed to carry two Akira's through Warp I believe. Which, lets face it would be freaking awesome, but sadly...

Cryptic doesn't only answer to its Minority, or Majority player base. In fact, they rarely do. It seems a LOT forget easily that they answer to CBS and the Star Trek Cannon crew, (Part of why we have the current Enterprise-F.). So if we can't get it to fly with those folks, its not flying here.

However! I do partially agree. Feds should get a Carrier. Through a long and complex mission line that has several fail factors, in which we sneak into Klink space and steal any of the Klink ships. Same with Klinks and Romulans and spoonheads. Everyone should have the opertunity to go steal the other faction's ships. Shouldn't be easy, shouldn't be something Everyone gets done, or something on the C-Store.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 124
07-28-2011, 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Zebular
I am sorry you're unable to understand properly what I wrote and that you think you are better than me. I am also sorry that you feel the need to fall back on and use your "experience" as a way to insult me just because you cannot or could not comprehend what I had wrote. More power to you!
Never once said I felt I was better than you, I have eight visual disorders, there does that make you feel better? Never once used my "experience" to insult you either, I did use it to establish credentials to support my supposition that you did not convey your notion in a clear concise manner.

That aside out of the way...

The only thing a Fed carrier will achieve is more space spam. Which would be a disaster in PvP even FvF PvP. Think about the two reasons Feds do not PvP Klings as often as Feds PvP Feds, Cloak and Carrier. Adding a carrier to the Feds will reduce the overall amount of players who are willing to PvP more than three times.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 125
07-28-2011, 04:28 AM
I don't know why I'm even bothering but.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagles View Post
As a klingon PVP fleet, we will gladly trade the Voquv for the intrepid. The Voquv after the its ridiculous nerf is a terrible ship. It is by far the easiest ship in the game to pop.
Yes! More homogeniza... rrrg, I mean "common sense" proposals like this! Every play option available to every faction, that's my motto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DecadeComplete
you know what. you all are right. Screw Klingon Originality. Feds should get everything.

[End Sarcasm]
Varanus. That is all

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
(Best possible Rod Sterling voice)

Imagine, if you will, two factions occupying the digital realm, both as different as night and day, with abilities unique and distinctive..

Red has abilities A, B, c, D and E, while Blue has abilities A, B, and C.

A will counter B and D, but falter to E.
B will counter E and D but falter to A
C will counter A, E but falter to B and E.
D will counter A, E but falter to C.
E will counter A, B and Sometimes C but falter to B, C, and D
F isn't in the game yet

Because of this, the factions Red and Blue struggle eternally, each fighting to attain an advantage they will never have, and praying to avoid the failures that will always inevitably find them. Each only enjoying brief victories due to the currents of fate, and the momentary folly or brilliance of their respective players.

This, ladies and Gentlemen, is the Balance Zone.


There, fixed it for you.

Quote:
Also: when I say "go back through those threads again" I mean it, count the distinctive posters falling on each side of the debate, the anti-Fed Carrier posters outnumber the pro-Fed Carrier posters 3 to 1. I counted the last time this came up.
Wow, then you're screwed and I will tell you why. In the cold hard democracy of commerce it's not just votes that are counted but results. If one guy would be so happy with a Fed-Carrier that Cryptic would retain his play loyalty and subscription for a years, that guy counts a lot more than any individual who would be so annoyed by the Fed-Carrier that they would complain about it on the forum. Conservatively estimated, that guys opinion weighs five times as much as 'the annoyed.'

Now, you're saying you've counted a 3-1 ratio? Assuming you counted correctly, assuming you didn't count one person twice, and assuming that the posters on this board represent more than a bored minority of players, the no Fed-Carrier crowd is going to have to do better than that if they want to keep this idea off Cryptics radar indefinitely. My suggestion would be first and foremost, get 1 in 6 members of the 'no fed carrier crowd' to pinky pledge to quit the game forever if the Fed-Carrier ever happens.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 126
07-28-2011, 04:19 PM
The Verenus is useless. It has the turn rate of a Galaxy X and its drone ability is worth nothing. Sure it may be the only Science Dedicated Gorn ship. But it has no point and is no way an excuse to give the Federation a carrier!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 127
07-28-2011, 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DecadeComplete
The Verenus is useless. It has the turn rate of a Galaxy X and its drone ability is worth nothing. Sure it may be the only Science Dedicated Gorn ship. But it has no point and is no way an excuse to give the Federation a carrier!
Really, I thought they fixed that. Let me go check...

So then, hypothetically. If they gave the Varanus a more standard turn speed, something closer to 11 degrees a second, you'd line up behind the Fedcarrier?

Please answer before you have a chance to check the C-Store and learn that they fixed the Varanus' turn radius awhile ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
Maybe you should go back through those threads again, the anti-Fed Carrier players always outnumber the Fed-Carrier fans. You are the one in a vocal minority my friend, not I.

And I can type in whatsoever color I choose, so there :p
You know, I actually did that. Sad results of insomnia and having a job that involves statistics and data analysis. And you were right, in this thread there's a clear easy 3 to 1 advantage for those against Fedcarriers. Then I checked the other Fedcarrier thread in the first 10 pages of the Fedshipyard forum and I again saw an easy 3 to 1 advantage, but that's not the only thing I noticed. Alot of the same people chime in against Federation Carriers, they usually do it with all manner of emoticons as if they were really frustrated. But I didn't see nearly as many people supporting the Fedcarrier in multiple threads.

So I started taking a count, again, insomnia, not of posts in favor or against, but of people in favor or against. After two threads the difference was close to about 2 to 1 against. I went through Admiralblacks suggestion thread in the Fed gameplay forum and, despite him having weak arguments, the ratio dropped even further. A fourth thread and we're about 72 people definitively against and 47 definitively in favor of.

Anyway, four threads of the same tired arguments and feigned indignation are about all I'm good for right now. Just thought you'd be interested in knowing, at our current rate the yay and nay votes will equal out if I go back about 10 threads, assuming there are 10 threads and the pattern holds.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 128
07-28-2011, 07:07 PM
You know, I was really against the diea of a Fed carrier, but I've recently started to agree that there's a need for one.

Maybe not a carrier, but a ship that can summon escorts as reinforcements. Escorts with RSF.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 129
07-28-2011, 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Yes! More homogeniza... rrrg, I mean "common sense" proposals like this! Every play option available to every faction, that's my motto.
I'm with you, I have no idea why you bother, your suggestions hardly ever garner any support amongst either the players or the Devs. Homogenization is a bad thing, why is that so hard for you to understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
There, fixed it for you.
Um.. No, that was just to illustrate that balance is possible without each side being copypasta of each other.. On second thought, no wonder you didn't like it, it invalidates your favorite position, homogenization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
snip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
snip
Ok, now figure out how many potential STO players they'll alienate away from joining up by turning STO into Star Galactica Wars Online. Figure that into your calculations about benefits/drawbacks to Fed Carriers.

How many times have we seen posters who come onto these forums and make it clear that the reason they play STO is because it's Trek, not because it's a Sci-Fi MMO? The farther you move from Trek, the more you'll anger and upset the core playerbase of this game.

If all they wanted was a Sci-Fi MMO, they'd be playing EVE.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 130
07-29-2011, 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
I'm with you, I have no idea why you bother, your suggestions hardly ever garner any support amongst either the players or the Devs. Homogenization is a bad thing, why is that so hard for you to understand?
Homogenization is a wonderful thing. As for why I keep at it despite my suggestions being met with either ridicule or indifference, masochism maybe? But lets not turn this personal, lets discuss the issues!

Quote:
Ok, now figure out how many potential STO players they'll alienate away from joining up by turning STO into Star Galactica Wars Online. Figure that into your calculations about benefits/drawbacks to Fed Carriers.

How many times have we seen posters who come onto these forums and make it clear that the reason they play STO is because it's Trek, not because it's a Sci-Fi MMO? The farther you move from Trek, the more you'll anger and upset the core playerbase of this game.

If all they wanted was a Sci-Fi MMO, they'd be playing EVE.
You've made a bit of a logical leap in your premise, so lets get that straightened out and we'll see what kind of real impact we can expect here.

How many Klingons fly carriers regularly? 1 in 20? Lets be really REALLY generous to your "Star Galactica Wars Online" theory and say 1 in 10 and that's with two choices. If we grant 1 in 10 Klingons fly carriers that means you have a 40% chance of seeing one Carrier in a standard FvK cap and hold map. Now can one carrier really be called galactica, it's outnumbered by other ships 7 to 1. Okay, what about two carriers? Well, with our generous hypothetical numbers that you have a 12% chance of half of the Klingon team being carriers. Now we're getting somewhere, bring on the spam! And you have something like a 2.5% chance of there being 3 Klingon carriers in a single Cap and Hold.

Ofcourse those aren't real numbers, in actuality it's much less likely as I do not believe the Voqov or the Kafir combined make up 10% of the KDF fleet.

Now if they added a single Federation carrier, how many Federation captains would fly carriers regularly? We can only speculate wildly here but I'm going to guess 1 in 15 making the individual Fedcarrier more popular, on a percentage basis, than either the Voqov or the Kafir but less popular than the two ships combined. Well, at 1 in 15 you have about a 27% chance of seeing one in a standard 4v4 Cap and hold. But I know what you're thinking, this isn't going to feel like Star Wars until X-Wings and Tie Fighters are buzzing around shooting eachother and you're right! With these numbers how often would a single carrier pop up on both sides of the field? About 10% of the time. With these numbers how often would 2 carriers pop up on both sides, about .6%.

Given what the math says, your concerns are unfounded.

And since I know you keep track of exactly how many arguments are made for or against Fedcarriers, you've certainly mentioned that enough, you can add "Battlestarwar Galactica" to the list of debunked reasons against.
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 06:53 PM.