Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
07-23-2011, 10:12 AM
Go BigRed, go! You tell it.

Also, again, spawn camping is far from a Klink exclusive ability. Feds are suprisingly blood thirsty for a bunch of space hippies. And please, for the love of whatever god you hold gear, no Fed Carriers. Thank you.^^
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
07-23-2011, 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
Was this abandoned? back after all this time and it's not even on the 'upcoming features/additions' thread anymore I thought with the addition of peregrine fighters we'd finally see a Federation Carrier ship but alas my dreams did not come true.. anyone else hoping they'll some day add a Fed Carrier ship?
Congratulations on reopening up this can of worms. Can't we just let this horse stay dead? The powers that be (Cryptic) have told us that they have no plans on releasing a Fed carrier, nor should they. That will take one more unique item away from us Klingon fans. And, for the record, I was against the Gorn sci-ship, too. That's more of a Fed thing and should've been kept blue-side.

If both sides had access to the same exact things, everyone but the most die-hard [insert faction name here] fans would play their faction of choice. That, coupled with the sorry state the KDF is currently in, nobody would consider playing anything but Federation.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
07-23-2011, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
Was this abandoned? back after all this time and it's not even on the 'upcoming features/additions' thread anymore I thought with the addition of peregrine fighters we'd finally see a Federation Carrier ship but alas my dreams did not come true.. anyone else hoping they'll some day add a Fed Carrier ship?
I just went back through the Engineering Reports, back to March of last year, right after the game launched, Fed Carriers aren't in there, as they have, repeatedly, said that they do not intend to create a Fed Carrier.

Seriously, every argument for a Fed Carrier has already been debunked except "I want to fly a Carrier and I don't want to level a KDF Alt."

And that's not enough. Too bad, so sad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
I thought I read once long ago that it was something they were thinking about in the long term? (which would make that time now since it was so long ago..)
Only in your feverish imagination.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
07-23-2011, 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
So... No Fed Carrier or Raider then, either.
Sure. You'll notice I've only ever said that you can't logically expand the KDF fleet without parting with some of it's more functionally and fundamentally unique elements. I haven't been making blanket statements, what I've said has always been dependant on other factors.

I've already said I don't particularly want a Carrier (Hell, I don't even like them), and I don't really want a Raider either (beyond the Birds-of-Prey I already fly).

What I want are either two factions with options that are actually unique to each faction, or if that can't happen I'd want to see neither faction have any truly unique elements.

What we have is one faction with a lot of options that are ultimately the same and possessed by the other with nothing really unique beyond simply having more flavours of vanilla, and one with fewer options but where several of them actually are unique to the faction and thus really matter.

Thus I'm fine with any of these options:
  1. No Carrier nor BoP for the UFP, and no new ships for the KDF so the UFP can retain it's raw numbers advantage in options and BOff slots.
  2. Carriers and/or BoPs for the UFP, and new ships for the KDF so each faction becomes homogeneous, and all the options are disseminated.
  3. The KDF gets new ships and retains it's unique ship types while the UFP gets two entirely new ship types that are forever barred from the KDF. Of course, there hasn't been a single new fundamentally different ship type introduced since launch... so I'm not getting my hopes up here.

I'm not fine with these:
  1. The KDF getting more ships to bridge the gap of available options while retaining their exclusive grasp on the Carrier and Raider while, conversely, the UFP doesn't get either Carriers and Raiders or two new fundamentally different ship types denied to the KDF.
  2. The UFP getting Carriers and Raiders, and allowing the disparity in options available to the KDF to persist.

Again, you're confusing your own argument. You were the one saying that you wanted both factions to be unique and require both factions be played because of that, and your suggestion was that the inherent uniqueness and balance of options for the UFP ships was in the BOff layouts, and that the KDF balance with options like the Carrier and BoP. But then you acknowledge that there's no real advantage among the BOffs.

So... your argument breaks down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
More new ships will be added to the Federation roster, as well, and history has already proven that those additions will be in greater proportion on the Federation side, rather than the KDF side, thus, the imbalances will remain, until all conceivable configurations are available as unique ship classes.
You've acknowledged that there is little room to grow within the 4/3/2/2/1 layout.
"...with only 3 remaining truly unique BOff layouts (2 of which will likely be eliminated with the upcoming release of the Odyssey-class Cruiser, and the Andorian Tactical ship)."
Sound familiar? According to you real growth for the UFP will stop in three ships. After that there's no real room to substantially grow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
The limits of the Tier 5 BOff layouts create the imbalances (and also lead, ultimately, to a mirroring of options to both sides), but how they have been handled within the existing ship structures, to this point, is where there are differences. The Federation has a wider array of ships, each with small, but important distinctions in available BOff seating; while the KDF has a narrower group of available ships and one, universal console-equipped ship that is capable of filling several roles, but is heavily underwhelming when used in any role except as a DPS/minor-CC ship (the specific implementation of being a DPS ship can fill a wide variety of setups, but the end result of the various combinations yields an Escort-comparable function, with a heavy focus on damage dealing, with a side focus of 'tricks').
Yes.

That's my point.

The limits of the BOff layouts ultimately means that the UFP has very little room for expansion at this point. So sure, it has more solid BOff slot options but if more KDF ships are added it can't maintain that advantage. As new ships are added to the KDF it will ultimately close that gap, gobbling it up one ship at a time.

Since there are only so many viable layouts there exists only a tiny fraction of real ground for the UFP to expand within the 4/3/2/2/1 layout to maintain it's edge in BOff slots which you suggest functions as it's advantage against fewer raw ship types. That leads to the UFP's professed advantage being eliminated by default, all while you suggest that the KDF's advantage (two unique ship types) should be maintained in spite of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
There are many times where it is advantageous to swap out skills within a theme established by the primary skills of the Captain, however, to fundamentally change the purpose of a build on the fly is, in PvE, painfully inefficient, and in PvP, a disservice to your team. To use your example, there are circumstances where a sub-optimal healer is better than none, if you have something like a DPS Cruiser (A Cruiser being far better suited to a healing role) that can fit a few extra Heals, instead of some of its damage skills; but to take a damage-focused BoP and swap to a heal-moderate/heavy loadout is hurting your team twice, by being sub-optimal at healing and now being sub-optimal at dealing damage.

Even the 'trick' BoPs, like Tric bombers, which use Sci-heavy loadouts to set-up their runs, ultimately have a single goal in mind, inflicting destruction on their opponents. For the BoP, it is not this uber-flexible powerhouse that many Feds believe it to be, it is an Escort that has the versatility to tailor its abilities to its Captain's preferences (and does allow some creative license), but its primary role is as a damage-dealer, and trying to shoehorn it into a role better suited and served by another ship class will always yield sub-optimal results.
Actually being an incredibly versatile ship is precisely what the BoP is. No, you won't be functioning optimally, but that's the entire point. You can field what a team needs, which with PUGs is a huge advantage. If you're flying with an established fleet and only ever need to define a very narrowly defined role within that rigid group, then yes, that versatility doesn't do you much good, but then when you're focused on one specific task and you find yourself in a group that doesn't require it... well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
Yes, I would say that there is a minor variation on a theme, using your comparison...
My comparison? Your suggestion was that only the Commander and Lieutenant Commander BOff positions matter. That was you. Despite this you've argued that...

Commander Powers: Engineering
Lieutenant Commander Powers: Engineering, Engineering
Lieutenant Powers: Engineering, Engineering, Science Tactical
Ensign Powers: Engineering, Engineering, Science, Tactical, Tactical

... is the different enough from this...

Commander Powers: Engineering
Lieutenant Commander Powers: Engineering, Engineering
Lieutenant Powers: Engineering, Engineering, Science, Tactical
Ensign Powers: Engineering, Engineering, Science, Science, Tactical

... to matter, and quality as what makes the UFP faction unique, while also arguing that these...

Commander Powers: Tactical
Lieutenant Commander Powers: Tactical, Science
Lieutenant Powers: Tactical, Science, Engineering, Engineering
Ensign Powers: Tactical, Science, Engineering, Engineering, Engineering

Commander Powers: Tactical
Lieutenant Commander Powers: Tactical, Science
Lieutenant Powers: Tactical, Tactical, Science, Engineering
Ensign Powers: Tactical, Tactical, Tactical, Science, Engineering

...are fundamentally the same.

It was your argument that only the Commander and Lt. Commander slots matter. That was YOU. Then you also argue that the minor options available to the Federation also matter, but apparently only there. You can't do that. You can't simultaneously argue two contradictory things whenever it seems to suit you just because doing differently works against you.

You need to pick a stance and stick with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
The argument is not that both sides aren't eventually going to accumulate similar ship-layout options...
When the argument you present is that the Federation gains it's uniqueness through minor BOff variations then yes that is the argument. Especially when you then state that the "Federation needs neither Carriers nor Raiders to have nearly the full gamut of available BOff-layouts..."

Let me put it another way...
"I have apples and you have oranges so things are good! We both have our own things! We each bring something unique to the table! Oh, but eventually I'm obviously going to have apples too! You can't ever have my oranges though! But... but... the argument isn't whether I will eventually have apples in addition to my oranges, it's just that we both have something unique! And we do! Because you have your apples and I have my oranges!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFO-OptimusPrime View Post
I believe its more like:
Raptor = Escort
Battle Cruiser = Cruiser
Fleet Support = Science Vessel
Carrier =
Raider =
= Dreadnought

Unless your lumping the Dreadnought in with the rest of the cruisers, if so then ignore that second quote.
Galaxy-X Dreadnought is just another flavour of Cruiser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
I just went back through the Engineering Reports, back to March of last year, right after the game launched, Fed Carriers aren't in there, as they have, repeatedly, said that they do not intend to create a Fed Carrier.
Might want to go back and watch STOked. The episode where, I believe it was Geko, discussing the new Enterprise. His first reaction was to make it a Federation Carrier, but then he decided it wasn't appropriate for a ship bearing the name Enterprise, that it was more fitting as a Cruiser due to the history there.

So it's safe to say the option is very much not off the table.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 45
07-23-2011, 02:40 PM
Federation Carriers are still on Table and Shelfed. but i'm not sure if they're willing to do it. as you know, in Star Trek Shows and Movies, Games, here's been Federation Carriers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 46
07-23-2011, 02:59 PM
Why do people want Federation carrier? i can't understand this. if people want carriers that badly why not play Klingon side. are you going to ask for the same if another faction is add to the game. time and time again the dev have said no Fed carrier and they have give a good reason for it so i don't see why people still keep asking for the same thing over and over again.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 47
07-23-2011, 03:05 PM
SCORPION FIGHTERS!!!

Seriously, am i freakin' invisible here? This has come up before in another thread rather recently and i mentioned SCORPION FIGHTERS there and it also got completely ignored. Why is everyone here except me sweeping SCORPION FIGHTERS under the rug in these conversations?

EVERY FED SHIP IS PRETTY MUCH THE EQUIVALENT OF A KAR'FI CARRIER!

Do i really have to rant and rave and troll and flame to get a response out of you people...?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 48
07-23-2011, 03:09 PM
Scorpion Fighters:

1) Suck
2) Take up a device slot
3) Aren't comparable to a Carrier's deployables

So the reason the response of "But Scorpions!" gets ignored is because it really doesn't apply. While I don't like Carriers, I have flown them. Scorpions don't equate.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 49
07-23-2011, 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by superlink1 View Post
Federation Carriers are still on Table and Shelved. but I'm not sure if they're willing to do it. as you know, in Star Trek Shows and Movies, Games, here's been Federation Carriers.
Name one show or movie where the Feds have used a Carrier, not a show or movie depicting a ship the ship creator intended to be a Carrier, but a ship that actually is a Carrier, and is used as one.

Other games, how do I say this? Don't matter.

First off, they're not hard canon, so CBS will never approve them as source material, secondly, Carriers in games made by other game companies are the property of those other game companies, not CBS or Paramount, just like ships like the the Star Cruisers are property of Cryptic/Atari, and cannot be used by the people making Star Trek: Infinite Space.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 50
07-23-2011, 03:32 PM
I am always for new ships and I personally think a Fed carrier would be awesome... But...

I do not see "Fighter Pilot/Ops" as a common profession in the Federation... Or even a rare one.

The average fighter in STO lasts around 6-10 seconds if it is lucky. I can not imagine there would be many people who would join Starfleet, go through years of training, and then go out on a combat fighter op knowing their life expectancy was measured in seconds with an almost 0 percent chance of returning alive for a second try. I would rather play Russian Roulette than be a fighter pilot.. At least 5 times out of 6 you will live.

Too bad the drones of Star Fleet Battles/Star Fleet Command didn't make it into STO as computer piloting or remote operation of fighters would be much more compatible with the inherent will to survive seen in most all Fed citizens.

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 02:04 AM.