Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
09-24-2011, 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
You mean they should be unarmed and unarmored?
lol...unarmed? hardly.
Obviously you've never actually been on one, nor even know much about them.
While a carrier relys on fighters for a lot, they are never "unarmed" outside of the aircraft.
They actually are extremly well armed, although it's almost all defensive weaponry rather than offensive weapons outside of few missles.
As far as armor, they are as well armored as any capitol ship, which is still pretty much useless against modern weapons. The best you can hope for is to be armored just enough to give your crew a chance to survive long enough to get off the ship before it sinks.
They aren't floating cities, they're floating fortresses.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
09-24-2011, 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by talbg View Post
Maybe so but I would just like to see them improve as carriers are about the only thing keeping me playing this game and they are in a bad place right now.
There is nothing wrong with that, no question about it.
However the direction you're proposing, assuming I am understnag you correctly which is by no means guaranteed I do, is a version that is almost entirely incapable of defending itself but does so for a considerable increase in fighter compliment.

The question I'd like to ask is whether that will be more enjoyable or whether it will pretty much be like playing the Necromancer in Diablo 2, which just about everyone I know calls the "coffee drinker" meaning you can drink a cup while looking on as you resurrected monsters do stuff.
And given how much control we can currently have over fighters that analogy sounds distressingly fitting.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
09-24-2011, 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBFLordKrueg View Post
lol...unarmed? hardly.
Obviously you've never actually been on one, nor even know much about them.
While a carrier relys on fighters for a lot, they are never "unarmed" outside of the aircraft.
They actually are extremly well armed, although it's almost all defensive weaponry rather than offensive weapons outside of few missles.
As far as armor, they are as well armored as any capitol ship, which is still pretty much useless against modern weapons. The best you can hope for is to be armored just enough to give your crew a chance to survive long enough to get off the ship before it sinks.
They aren't floating cities, they're floating fortresses.
Well, they've got two defensive missile launchers for RIM-116 missiles and two Sea Sparrow Launchers.
Given their hughe size that is very litle when you compare that to the armament the KDF carriers have.
As I pointed out, the Russian concept seems more balanced given the armament relative to their size (which is rather small compared to the Nimitz-class)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...iral_Kuznetsov

as for armor:
I am aware of the problems of armor given modern weapons.
Bulge became totally useless once torpedoes were changed so they would detonate under the ship instead of impact on the side near the waterline.
Which is once again an example why they are no good examples of how a Star Trek ship should be designed, which do seem to have armor.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
09-24-2011, 01:02 PM
I think you took the wrong elements out of what I was wishing to express and I apologize if I did not present it in a correct manner.

Let me expound on my idea, it is not math hammered out and not taking into balance for pvp.

A slow ship with a low turning rate that has low shields (the current Vo'quv) has a hard time defending it's self being that it can't out shield one side or even turn to get a new shield facing to defend it's self fast enough. So I believe it needs a better defensive set maybe part active and part passive. Turrets that do cone damage vs killing type of torps maybe. Better shields with a better shield transfer rate.

An offensive system that does not rely on the very boring beams FAW spam that is super lame. Maybe only 4 weapon systems but they all count as 360? Maybe a torp that can fire up to 15K being your range of your fighters?

Maybe for command all ally ships in 7k get +5 to all power settings?

These are all very rough ideas with no math behind them but things I "my opinion" would like to see in a way that the dev team finds balanced and adequate.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
09-25-2011, 02:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by talbg View Post
I think you took the wrong elements out of what I was wishing to express and I apologize if I did not present it in a correct manner.

Let me expound on my idea, it is not math hammered out and not taking into balance for pvp.

A slow ship with a low turning rate that has low shields (the current Vo'quv) has a hard time defending it's self being that it can't out shield one side or even turn to get a new shield facing to defend it's self fast enough. So I believe it needs a better defensive set maybe part active and part passive. Turrets that do cone damage vs killing type of torps maybe. Better shields with a better shield transfer rate.

An offensive system that does not rely on the very boring beams FAW spam that is super lame. Maybe only 4 weapon systems but they all count as 360? Maybe a torp that can fire up to 15K being your range of your fighters?

Maybe for command all ally ships in 7k get +5 to all power settings?

These are all very rough ideas with no math behind them but things I "my opinion" would like to see in a way that the dev team finds balanced and adequate.
No need to apologize, as I said it's not the first time this happened.
And maybe I just have a subconcious tendency to misread others.
Command/control is indeed something sorely missing from this game.
I did indeed design something in this category while ago (even though I intended 1 of my ideas for the KDF and the other for the Feds, ironically for the so-called "anti-carrier, to make it even)

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...9&postcount=37

I am aware that I put a comment in there that I doubt the Klingns would put something like this on a large ship but given what you propose (a reduced amount of weapons for such an ability) something like the buffs I proposed for the Federation model might work for a Klingon carrier too.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
09-26-2011, 12:54 AM
There is a carrier refit... its called the Kar'fi
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
09-26-2011, 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeuxidemus
There is a carrier refit... its called the Kar'fi
How is it a refit?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
09-26-2011, 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
How is it a refit?
I imagine that the Fek'Ihri sleep in hammocks, so they pulled down all those hammocks and installed shelves for the Klingons to sleep on.

See it's a refit.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
09-26-2011, 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jizzak
I imagine that the Fek'Ihri sleep in hammocks, so they pulled down all those hammocks and installed shelves for the Klingons to sleep on.

See it's a refit.
It's more likely the Fek'lhri sleep in fireplaces.
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 09:23 AM.