Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Klingon Fleetyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I don't mean to sound "gloom and doom" but my instincts tell me that the upcoming changes to carrier operations and design has some inherent flaws built into them that are based on bias and flawed perspective, and not reality.

I will start with the #1 issue on my mind -- and I may not get any further that that due to time, but we will see.

One of the most important planned changes is going to be a tweaking of the carrier mechanics to reduce playing field "spam" The idea is to reduce the number of fighters or craft a carrier can launch, but compensate that reduced number by making the individual craft tougher.

Here are the problems witih that logic...

1. No offense, Federation Captains, but the truth is that in PvP, with the vessels you have now, Federation players are capable of deploying just as much "spam" as a carrier can. Photonic Fleet, Scorpion fighters, the various special ship abilities such as saucer seperation, multi-vector assault, and the hologram module, and...the biggest culprit of all -- mine layers -- doubles and triples the amount of "spam" on the playing field. In fact, I suspect that all of the complaints a lot of us are hearing from the Federation side is related more to the effects that "friendly spam" has on their lag, rather than carrier craft. However, nothing is being done to address this aspect of the battlefield clutter -- instead, carriers are being punished as the primary culprit.

2. Toughening up the deployable craft is not going to achieve any sort of parity or mitigate the loss of numbers. This is because as any PvPer knows when it comes to opposing a carrier, you ignore the pets and go after the mothership, because if you can kill the mother ship, every craft deployed from that ship instantly dies. One rock, multiple birds. The only thing that would possibly change that equation is if the deployable craft stayed on the board of play after destruction of the carrier...but I suspect that would be somewhat difficult to accomplish game-wise.

3. Less deployable craft means less weapons, which in turn means a DPS reduction. Not too long ago, carrier deployable craft took a massive DPS reduction hit. As far as I know -- and I freely admit that I might be wrong -- but I sort of doubt that the deployable craft will get a DPS boost to balance anywhere between a 30-50% loss in combat craft deployed in the air.

Now...my philosophy is to offer up solutions, not just problems. So -- I am not saying "don't do it!" what I am saying is that if you are going to reduce the number of deployable craft, which reduces a carrier's combat capability no matter how you slice and dice it, then some other changes need to be considered to balance that loss. Here are some ideas --

1. If you reduce the number of craft, then your carriers essentially end up changing roles - this is especially true of the Vo'Qov, which, of all of the carriers, is more of a "stand off" type of launch platform. Instead of being a stand-off support platform for her fighters, a Vo'Qov will need to enter battle as a significant combatant to balance the loss of weaponry and deployable craft. To that end, that means that for the Vo'qov, some changes are going to have to be made. Here are a few suggestions:

a. Provide the Vo'qov with an additional weapons bank in the forward arc, like the Karfi has.
b. Provide the Vo'qov with an innate armor resistance buff to help resist damage.
c. Give the Vo'qov a 2 point turn increase.

I am basically out of time...but my core point is essentially this -- all of these changes are being done, and according to another thread, no changes are being anticipated for the Vo'Qov simply because it is considered a good ship as it is -- I also think it is a good ship, but I also realize that when you make changes on the scale of what is being planned for deployable craft, then the role that the ship plays also changes, and with less fighter craft, then logically, the carrier becomes more of a direct combatant, more like a cruiser, in fact, with hanger bays. The Vo'Qov is ill-suited to go toe to toe with anything in that fashion.

Just some thoughts for a Tuesday morning.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
10-25-2011, 05:42 AM
I agree.
Due to the fact that some fought against multiple carriers early in there release and the huge number of pets that they could create, the VoQ has for ever carried the Spam moniker.
Its no longer even remotely true and has done nothing but see nerf after buff after nerf given to the VoQ.

Carrier spam is bad but double Scramble effects are good evidently is the philosophy
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
10-26-2011, 12:34 AM
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
10-26-2011, 03:46 AM
the way to deal with KDF carrier "spam" should be to release a UFoP carrier :-p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
10-26-2011, 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
To be honest, after I changed my targeting options to exclude the ability to target NPCs and pets, my spam issues have disapeered leaving only SS/AMS as the main spam.
Now infact I have to target any NPC/Pet spam via mouse pointer if I wish to shoot them, and can now TAB target through Player toons in PvP with no issue.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
10-26-2011, 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
To be honest, after I changed my targeting options to exclude the ability to target NPCs and pets, my spam issues have disapeered leaving only SS/AMS as the main spam.
Now infact I have to target any NPC/Pet spam via mouse pointer if I wish to shoot them, and can now TAB target through Player toons in PvP with no issue.
Well my targerting issues with Carriers has been resolved that way, true...
But honestly, targerting sucks enough without pets. Some "Kind" of crossair to pick targerts would be a great addition.
My personal second issue with carriers and their spam is a completly diffrent one: Their sole presence turn pvp into a slideshow. And I know others share that problem.

And to make that clear... I dont want carriers to be nerfed. But that is still anoying.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
10-26-2011, 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZTempest

1. No offense, Federation Captains, but the truth is that in PvP, with the vessels you have now, Federation players are capable of deploying just as much "spam" as a carrier can. Photonic Fleet, Scorpion fighters, the various special ship abilities such as saucer seperation, multi-vector assault, and the hologram module, and...the biggest culprit of all -- mine layers -- doubles and triples the amount of "spam" on the playing field. In fact, I suspect that all of the complaints a lot of us are hearing from the Federation side is related more to the effects that "friendly spam" has on their lag, rather than carrier craft. However, nothing is being done to address this aspect of the battlefield clutter -- instead, carriers are being punished as the primary culprit.
Just because carriers are getting hit doesn't mean all the rest shouldn't too.

Photonic Fleet: needs fewer but tougher, higher DPS ships, just like with carrier pets. I'd kind of prefer to get rid of this since science officers are already dramatically overpowered in PvP (because of SNB, Sensor Scan, and Sci Fleet which make them tops in both offense and defense) but I understand that Science is much weaker in PvE, so Photonic Fleet is necessary there.

Scorpion Fighters: shouldn't exist. If they do exist, they should require a hangar bay.

Saucer Separation: needs a little buff if anything. It's one NPC, and severely under-gunned.

MVAM: There really isn't a way to reduce the number of ships. I kind of think that the separated ships ought to have a bit more of a downside to them; right now there is no trade off to using MVAM. But there's nothing that can be done about the spam.

Mines: should get the same treatment as fighters. There should be far fewer mines deployed (1 without using a dispersal pattern would be fine) but they should be harder to destroy (or harder to detect) and do much more damage. Mines aren't used in Trek the way they are in the game anyway, so there's no downside to dramatically reducing their number.

Quote:
2. Toughening up the deployable craft is not going to achieve any sort of parity or mitigate the loss of numbers. This is because as any PvPer knows when it comes to opposing a carrier, you ignore the pets and go after the mothership, because if you can kill the mother ship, every craft deployed from that ship instantly dies. One rock, multiple birds. The only thing that would possibly change that equation is if the deployable craft stayed on the board of play after destruction of the carrier...but I suspect that would be somewhat difficult to accomplish game-wise.
Whether or not to ignore the pets depends on how fast you can kill the carrier. An escort can just burn down the carrier (though they still might prefer CSV over CRF to keep pets under control), but a cruiser will generally need to thin out the pets.

If you aren't using FAW or another AOE ability, then the pets can reach a critical mass long before the carrier is threatened. If there are multiple carriers and they manage to get their full compliment of pets out, just going into the cloud means you lose.

It's not that players need to focus on killing the pets, but the pets need to be killed as a byproduct of AOE attacks.

With fewer fighters, I wouldn't mind if they aren't automatically killed by FAW, TS, or PSW. It would be okay if they were tough enough that they actually needed to be targeted to be killed.

But you can't just ignore the pets -- they'll kill you faster than you can kill the carrier if you do that.

Quote:
3. Less deployable craft means less weapons, which in turn means a DPS reduction. Not too long ago, carrier deployable craft took a massive DPS reduction hit. As far as I know -- and I freely admit that I might be wrong -- but I sort of doubt that the deployable craft will get a DPS boost to balance anywhere between a 30-50% loss in combat craft deployed in the air.
I assumed the deployables were getting a DPS increase.

Right now deployables are feast or famine. If I park on a carrier and drop EWP on him continuously, then he'll be lucky to get 3 or 4 fighters out, and that really isn't balanced. OTOH, if a team with 3 carriers manages to get their full compliment of fighters out and there isn't enough focus on killing the fighters, then they become like a school of piranhas.

There should be some sort of middle ground where carriers can reliably keep a enough fighters in the air to do enough damage, but letting them launch their maximum doesn't result in such a DPS increase.





Any game that has pets and PvP has this problem. It was probably a bad idea to have carriers as playable ships at all, especially for the "PvP faction", but we're stuck with it. Making the carriers more cruiser-like might help, but then pets should probably be reduced even more.

Just remember that most of us who complain about spam aren't just complaining about carriers. I hate scorpions, mines, photonic fleet, and fleet support even more, because none of those needed to be added to the game at all -- carriers at least need their fighters to function.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
10-26-2011, 07:53 AM
I think I need to add that the Carrier BoP are already "buffed" up. and reduced to 4 on Tribble.

My typical fight begins like so:
Get all 4 BoP deployed, before the fight even starts, which takes me a little over 40 seconds to accomplish now since the BoPs are now Rare with a dployment speed buff, combined with 2 Flight Deck Officers from the Doff system roster, which results in a little over 30 second cooldown time for each one, at 80 Aux power, and you no loger have to be within 15km of a target to deploy anymore,
They will actually cloak on the onset of their Alpha attack run,
They use CRF1 on their own,
They use HY1 on their own now too.
This concludes with NPC Typhoon class battleships lasting about 5 seconds from start of fight to finish...
And mind you, they are the "new" properly leveling type now on Tribble.

I had the same result with the D'diridex that the Fed ships were having trouble with also.

My 4 BoP, if left to fight a Cube on their own, tend to destroy said Cube, on their own.

My BoP barely get a scratch when Tricobalt mines blow up in their faces.

So, it's now my belief that the new rearrangement for the Carriers to reduce spam, is JUST FINE!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
10-26-2011, 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
How is this going to make Carriers more fun to play? The niche for this ship type is to unleash a swarm of gnats on your target. That's the whole point of the class. If you cut those down, what's the point? What is our motivation for flying one?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
10-26-2011, 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
Carrier pets are not the only targets in our crosshairs for dealing with spam. While we do not want to fundamentally change the mechanics of powers except where really necessary, we are trying to shave the numbers down wherever we can.

In addition to carrier pets, mines, Photonic Fleet, and many other sources of spam have been the subject of ongoing discussions. Right now we are hip deep in the build on Tribble, but after that cools down a bit I expect we will be tackling more of these kinds of issues.
Um...if spam is a concern at all, why did ya just release even more ships that launch fighters and such on Tribble?
Not that I mind, some of them are really nice...but the whole PvP spam hate crowd is gonna flip out over even more shps with fighters.
Myself, love carriers....bring em on.
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 01:29 AM.