Lt. Commander
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 108
# 51
04-02-2013, 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfang240 View Post
if you think the pitiful amount of deployables this game can support constitutes 'spam', i suggest you go play a game like homeworld; you'll quickly realize just what 'spam' really is
I know exactly how a massive fighter spam looks like.
But a huge ship with a huge high efficiency warp core.
could make massive photonic fighters,crew and anything photonic.
Photonic fighters 50 fighters per squad ( increased by auxiliary power)
2 squads per item ( increased by aux power)
armed with 1 phot torp
1 anti-proton beam array.

That should get overpowered.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,087
# 52
04-02-2013, 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Targeting and hitting are two very different things.
yes, and fighters tend to get hit frequently in this game, which is why their life expectancy is 3 seconds or less

Quote:
Originally Posted by glados122 View Post
I know exactly how a massive fighter spam looks like.
But a huge ship with a huge high efficiency warp core.
could make massive photonic fighters,crew and anything photonic.
Photonic fighters 50 fighters per squad ( increased by auxiliary power)
2 squads per item ( increased by aux power)
armed with 1 phot torp
1 anti-proton beam array.

That should get overpowered.
oh yes, it would

and to think, people across the forums are crying about fighter spam now; imagine if cryptic made it so science vessels could actually do that

if they can already create 3 large capital ships, hundreds of tiny fighters would be no problem...only problem is, neither the game engine nor the server can support something like that
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwecaptainsmirk View Post
*reassuringly strokes your hair*
Hush now, you will be back kicking Neelix and killing those nasty Vaadwaur soon enough... hush child.
*pat pat on your head*
epic smirk is epic
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,477
# 53
04-02-2013, 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfang240 View Post
yes, and fighters tend to get hit frequently in this game, which is why their life expectancy is 3 seconds or less
Once again, how things work in STO and how things work in-universe are two very different things.

In-game stuff is fine (seriously, carriers are in a fairly good place (aside from the borked pet AI) right now). Trying to apply the rationale behind said in-game stuff to the in-universe stuff...not so much.
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 355
# 54
04-02-2013, 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
For starters, Peregrines only appear in I believe five EPs of DS9.

Secondly, you see two or three Peregrines go boom during Operation Return. That's it. In a firefight between literally thousands of medium to capital warships, that's pretty damn good.
Operation Return and the Battle of Cardassia Prime. During the former, mind you, it took eight waves of them to draw away the Cardassian ships and allow the Federation-allied forces to attempt a breakthrough.

Quote:
I'm not and you know it. I'm making the point that, unlike STO, carriers don't lose dozens (or more) of their fighters in every engagement.
Yes, and regardless of the rate of attrition eventually a carrier with finite resources must resupply. I misspoke earlier and meant to say I said nothing of rates of attrition; you read into my statement to interpret I was assuming high rates of attrition, when really I was making no assumptions about the rates at all.

Either way, it has no impact on the supposition hangar bays in STO are mobile manufactories opposed to storage facilities for large number of prefab craft. In fact, if we are discussing rate of attrition, having mobile manufactories would operate most efficiently in circumstances of low attrition (since otherwise, a carrier would exhaust its entire maximum complement and be waiting and vulnerable while new craft completed), which is your counterargument here.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,087
# 55
04-02-2013, 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
In-game stuff is fine (seriously, carriers are in a fairly good place (aside from the borked pet AI) right now).
and to think, the pet AI has already been improved at least 3 times since i started playing, yet they're still too stupid to avoid exploding ships, necessitating the deployment of more...AI coders at their finest, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwecaptainsmirk View Post
*reassuringly strokes your hair*
Hush now, you will be back kicking Neelix and killing those nasty Vaadwaur soon enough... hush child.
*pat pat on your head*
epic smirk is epic
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 8,087
# 56
04-02-2013, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theodrim View Post
During the former, mind you, it took eight waves of them to draw away the Cardassian ships and allow the Federation-allied forces to attempt a breakthrough.
i think that was more the cardassians not biting at what was an obvious attempt to draw their forces out of position than those waves being obliterated before they could actually open a hole in enemy lines
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwecaptainsmirk View Post
*reassuringly strokes your hair*
Hush now, you will be back kicking Neelix and killing those nasty Vaadwaur soon enough... hush child.
*pat pat on your head*
epic smirk is epic
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 179
# 57
04-02-2013, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Secondly, crew complement and ship capacity are not at all related. An Akira class ship comes with a crew of 500, yet it has the capacity to transport 4500 additional personnel if need be, while still functioning as an active strike carrier with upwards of 40 strike craft in it's fighter wing.
Alright I had to look this up to check your information. Memory-Alpha link here under Technical Manual.

That 4500 additional personnel is an 'evacuation limit.' Which can mean that everyone is crammed into living quarters and such, not that it has crew facilities for that amount of people.

The Galaxy class, for example, has a crew of 1000 with an evacuation limit of 15,000.

The way Crew is implemented in the game may be broken, but what it represents is still valid and in Star Trek there is no separation of duties for what Crew does what, everyone works on everything. Meaning that crew also man their fighter/shuttlecraft.
Meaning that every shuttlecraft/fighter lost is a possible emergency transporter failure and a lost crewmember. With the relaunching that carriers in game do, that's an unacceptable causality rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Trying to apply the rationale behind said in-game stuff to the in-universe stuff...not so much.
Except there is an in-universe reason for why Carriers don't field a lot of craft. Because they're not worth it. Regardless of anything else, the only thing small craft can do better than any other ship class is be in a whole lot of places at once.

Last edited by yargomesh; 04-02-2013 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Added link.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,477
# 58
04-02-2013, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theodrim View Post
Operation Return and the Battle of Cardassia Prime. During the former, mind you, it took eight waves of them to draw away the Cardassian ships and allow the Federation-allied forces to attempt a breakthrough.
I may be misreading here, but are you implying that all eight waves were completely wiped out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theodrim View Post
Yes, and regardless of the rate of attrition eventually a carrier with finite resources must resupply. I misspoke earlier and meant to say I said nothing of rates of attrition; you read into my statement to interpret I was assuming high rates of attrition, when really I was making no assumptions about the rates at all.

Either way, it has no impact on the supposition hangar bays in STO are mobile manufactories opposed to storage facilities for large number of prefab craft. In fact, if we are discussing rate of attrition, having mobile manufactories would operate most efficiently in circumstances of low attrition (since otherwise, a carrier would exhaust its entire maximum complement and be waiting and vulnerable while new craft completed), which is your counterargument here.
Yes, they must resupply. As must every ship engaged in frontline combat. Very few warships are designed for long-term, unsupported deployments (be they present day ones or fictional future ones). In addition, given the capacity for just about any other 25th century vessel to carry a number of strike craft, the option of resupplying a carrier in the field is much more viable.

Which, operating under a non-catastrophic attrition scenario, leads me to conclude that operational firepower (IE: putting more fighters in the field at a given time), not operational stamina (IE: having endless waves of fighters) would take precedence in design and deployment theory.

Last edited by stirling191; 04-02-2013 at 01:10 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,477
# 59
04-02-2013, 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yargomesh View Post
The way Crew is implemented in the game may be broken, but what it represents is still valid and in Star Trek there is no separation of duties for what Crew does what, everyone works on everything. Meaning that crew also man their fighter/shuttlecraft.
Meaning that every shuttlecraft/fighter lost is a possible emergency transporter failure and a lost crewmember. With the relaunching that carriers in game do, that's an unacceptable causality rate.
If you honestly think that any sane commander is going to put Sergeant Schultz the brig guard into a fighter when he has trained pilots at his disposal, you're deluding yourself.

Secondly, for now I believe the third time: fighter loss rates in STO in no way represent actual in-universe fighter loss rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yargomesh View Post
Except there is an in-universe reason for why Carriers don't field a lot of craft. Because they're not worth it. Regardless of anything else, the only thing small craft can do better than any other ship class is be in a whole lot of places at once.
Cite your source on any of that.

Carrier-launched craft carrying weapons capable of taking out a much larger warship redefined naval combat on Earth. Carrier-launched craft in STO are capable of carrying weapons that can depopulate worlds, let alone take out damaged/unshielded enemy craft.

An antimatter warhead is an antimatter warhead, regardless of what fires it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 108
# 60
04-02-2013, 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfang240 View Post

oh yes, it would

and to think, people across the forums are crying about fighter spam now; imagine if cryptic made it so science vessels could actually do that

if they can already create 3 large capital ships, hundreds of tiny fighters would be no problem...only problem is, neither the game engine nor the server can support something like that
So science players can create ships.
that means a team of 20 could make a nice fleet. (vice admiral/brigadier general)
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 10:04 PM.