test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Putting the "Temporal" in "Temporal Starships"

124»

Comments

  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    I was expecting this to go live with the update. Does anyone know when this change will go live?
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,820 Arc User
    While you're at it can you give some love to the Annorax and Paradox? They're Temporal ships with no Temporal abilities at all....so could they get some love and a boff update?
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    Yeah, but if you get that machine gun bullet or grenade down the right exhaust vent you could blow up the entire Battleship. ;)
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    Here's a question. With these ships that are getting an extra Hanger Bay, will their Admiralty Card stats change?
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 3,196 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    Personally I'm a little disappointed to find out that the "Flight-deck cruiser's/Battlecruiser's Presidio, Geneva and Concorde are not getting that hanger bay.
    It would've given me the excuse to use my Presidio again, my torpedo build also worked well on that ship.

  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    I think the Strike Wing should be added to the Tactical Carrier Warbird as well , so it would be Strike Wing Warbird, which actually sounds pretty cool.
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    > @ltminns said:
    > Here's a question. With these ships that are getting an extra Hanger Bay, will their Admiralty Card stats change?

    They are still engineering ships so I doubt it .
  • tobiashirttobiashirt Member Posts: 630 Arc User
    Granted that it takes a ship for the strategy to work, but the subsystem targeting usage that PhoenixC described comes into it's own with the Jorogumo trait.

    Ships with subsystem targeting get 4 extra tac powers without needing any seats for it. That's not to say that carriers don't feel a bit left behind, but it's not that bad.
  • starfleetb1#9233 starfleetb1 Member Posts: 11 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    When is this due to come out?
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    > @fleetcommad said:
    > When is this due to come out?

    Yes I echo this question.
  • captainsolo6captainsolo6 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    Personally I'm a little disappointed to find out that the "Flight-deck cruiser's/Battlecruiser's Presidio, Geneva and Concorde are not getting that hanger bay.

    Agreed, I always felt they looked more like a federation version of a carrier than the jupiter. Let the command flight deck carriers be a thing, and lets upgrade the Nimitz/Europa to a flight deck carrier so that it can reflect its forebearer, the Nimitz class carrier!

    Totally agree with you!
  • ioz#6379 ioz Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    Typically don't post here, but saw the news and wanted to chime in.

    So are there any plans to give the Jupiter a third or even a fourth deck? I know a lot of people are asking this but I never saw it mentioned in the article. I bought Jupiter years ago because it said carrier on the box. I watched it superseded by the free, Vorgon summer event ship and now both of those are going to be eclipsed in just about every way by ships that were never even marketed as carriers. Is there even a rework of the Jupiter in the offing? And please don't say that it's only to add a secondary deflector. I bought it because it was a carrier and it certainly wasn't sold on the strength of being a "science ship."

    It doesn't need more weapons. It doesn't need another deflector, and it doesn't need a special weapon slot. It needs something to keep it head and shoulders -as a carrier- above other ships with two decks now. PLease consider it?

    Right, well that's all I have to say. Thanks.
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    lianthelia wrote: »
    While you're at it can you give some love to the Annorax and Paradox? They're Temporal ships with no Temporal abilities at all....so could they get some love and a boff update?

    Those two ships make a lot of sense to be included too.
  • dagorherudagorheru Member Posts: 43 Arc User
    For anyone looking for a link that actually works, Click Me!

    Now.. most of these changes seem pretty good, there is only one thing dissapointing to me..
    There are some other ships that do not entirely fit in existing ship classifications, such as the Obelisk Carrier, the Command Battlecruisers..

    The Command Battlecruisers should be part of this change in my opinion. They're already obsolete and left in the dust, adding a second hangar bay to something like the Presidio could give it a new life and help it fit better with the current generation of ships. It's a shame to not see these changes applied to these ships.. they could really use something to breathe some life back into them.

    i support this idea... my CBC is one of my favorite ships, and i love to fly it. i would love another hanger bay on it... it does make sense, given its size in game...
  • dagorherudagorheru Member Posts: 43 Arc User
    lordgyor wrote: »
    > @fleetcommad said:
    > When is this due to come out?

    Yes I echo this question.

    soooooo when?
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 10,247 Community Moderator
    Soon™
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
    ----> Contact Customer Support <----
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
    Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    Today it appears, yeah !
  • duasynduasyn Member Posts: 492 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    ioz#6379 wrote: »
    Typically don't post here, but saw the news and wanted to chime in.

    So are there any plans to give the Jupiter a third or even a fourth deck? I know a lot of people are asking this but I never saw it mentioned in the article. I bought Jupiter years ago because it said carrier on the box. I watched it superseded by the free, Vorgon summer event ship and now both of those are going to be eclipsed in just about every way by ships that were never even marketed as carriers. Is there even a rework of the Jupiter in the offing? And please don't say that it's only to add a secondary deflector. I bought it because it was a carrier and it certainly wasn't sold on the strength of being a "science ship."

    It doesn't need more weapons. It doesn't need another deflector, and it doesn't need a special weapon slot. It needs something to keep it head and shoulders -as a carrier- above other ships with two decks now. PLease consider it?

    Right, well that's all I have to say. Thanks.

    The question is: Is a secondary deflector and low power, long cooldown subsystem targeting powers equal to the 2 weapon hardpoints and cruiser powers that the 'flight deck carriers' have? IMO, no. Plain ol' Sci Carriers are woefully underpowered now. They need 2 more hangers. Maybe make a distinction by doing 2 fighter hangers and 2 frigate hangers? Or give them something like the Vanguard Wingmen? IRL carriers never go alone, they are always escorted by support ships.
  • ioz#6379 ioz Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    duasyn wrote: »

    The question is: Is a secondary deflector and low power, long cooldown subsystem targeting powers equal to the 2 weapon hardpoints and cruiser powers that the 'flight deck carriers' have? IMO, no. Plain ol' Sci Carriers are woefully underpowered now. They need 2 more hangers. Maybe make a distinction by doing 2 fighter hangers and 2 frigate hangers? Or give them something like the Vanguard Wingmen? IRL carriers never go alone, they are always escorted by support ships.

    I'd love two frigate bays and two fighter bays with the option of the frigate bays also supporting regular fighters(essentially four fighter bays). No offence intended, and I don;t want to ome across as pedantic, but I still find it sort of irksome that people have taken to calling the Jupiter a science carrier when it was sold as as 'carrier.'

    Changes I'd love to see made would be the two extra bays, of course, and to have the seating changed to; Lieutenant Tac, Lieutenant Com Eng/Int, Lieutenant Sci, Lieutenant Uni, Commander Uni/int. To reflect more of a generalist/nerve centre nature. Especially given that the fleet version does an even split on consoles at three tac, four engineering, four science. This way it becomes capable of multiple styles of play whether it's full offence or as more of a engineering/science support ship depending on what the player chooses.

    As for vanguard wingmen I'd rather just have four fighter bays for the flexibility. There's enough other ships in most solo missions we play as well as TFOs(particularly TFO missions) that the 'battle group' aspect of things is sort of covered by them.

    In the end I just hope to see it, and its cousins, retain their status as among the best of dedicated carriers.
  • schloopdooschloopdoo Member Posts: 373 Arc User
    I’m away from my gaming PC for the time being and can’t log in to the game, but I’m curious to know whether someone can confirm that the Romulan and KDF Escort Carrier Warbird and Flight Deck Raptor were included in this Strike Wing business and get the improved DPS Mastery that goes with it.
  • djf021djf021 Member Posts: 1,378 Arc User
    I've been monitoring this thread since it's release, hoping Kael or someone would comment on the question everyone is asking, but I have to agree that the Paradox should be included. It even shares a console set with the other two temporal science vessels.

    Also, I believe it's true that the "old" two hanger bay carriers are now much less desirable and should really be buffed in some way. When I want to spend money and I'm deciding between a new flight-deck carrier or "regular" older carrier, I would definitely choose a ship with cruiser abilities, better turn rate, and the possibility of much greater tactical potency over a science heavy, slower carrier (most of them, with a few exceptions) with pointless subsystem targeting and sensor analysis.
    C4117709-1498929112732780large.jpg

    Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
    -Captain James T. Kirk
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    Did Cryptic ever officially answer why that Paradox, or others, ship didn't get Temporal treatment? I don't see it in this thread. It would be interesting to just hear their reasoning behind it or if just an oversight. I tried asking multiple times in today's 10 Forward Weekly, but seemed Kael was avoiding the question so much that the building then loss power lol.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    Did Cryptic ever officially answer why that Paradox, or others, ship didn't get Temporal treatment? I don't see it in this thread. It would be interesting to just hear their reasoning behind it or if just an oversight. I tried asking multiple times in today's 10 Forward Weekly, but seemed Kael was avoiding the question so much that the building then loss power lol.
    Temp spec was introduced in AoY, older ships didn't have it.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • sci321sci321 Member Posts: 150 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    Did Cryptic ever officially answer why that Paradox, or others, ship didn't get Temporal treatment? I don't see it in this thread. It would be interesting to just hear their reasoning behind it or if just an oversight. I tried asking multiple times in today's 10 Forward Weekly, but seemed Kael was avoiding the question so much that the building then loss power lol.
    Temp spec was introduced in AoY, older ships didn't have it.

    Sure, Temp Op specialization didn't exist when the ship was first released, but because of the following facts, there is literally no reason for the Paradox to not have Temporal seating now.
    1. The specialization exists now.
    2. The specialization is in the ship's name.
    3. It shares a console set with the Temporal Science Vessel and Destroyer.
    4. Two of the abilities its starship trait alters are Temp Op abilities.
    That last reason is a big one to me because why should a ship have a trait that alters abilities it can't even have?
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    sci321 wrote: »
    Did Cryptic ever officially answer why that Paradox, or others, ship didn't get Temporal treatment? I don't see it in this thread. It would be interesting to just hear their reasoning behind it or if just an oversight. I tried asking multiple times in today's 10 Forward Weekly, but seemed Kael was avoiding the question so much that the building then loss power lol.
    Temp spec was introduced in AoY, older ships didn't have it.
    Sure, Temp Op specialization didn't exist when the ship was first released, but because of the following facts, there is literally no reason for the Paradox to not have Temporal seating now.
    1. The specialization exists now.
    2. The specialization is in the ship's name.
    3. It shares a console set with the Temporal Science Vessel and Destroyer.
    4. Two of the abilities its starship trait alters are Temp Op abilities.
    That last reason is a big one to me because why should a ship have a trait that alters abilities it can't even have?
    Sure, it makes sense. But the most they'll likely do is make a second version that does have temp primary spec.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    As long as they put them in a selection box for each - Annorax (2), Paradox (2). And while they're at it, do the same with the Jem'Hadars and the Sheshars. Those last two sets should not be in there individually. I know in their case each came out seperately, but come on, do a bit of work for the cost of these things already.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    sci321 wrote: »
    Did Cryptic ever officially answer why that Paradox, or others, ship didn't get Temporal treatment? I don't see it in this thread. It would be interesting to just hear their reasoning behind it or if just an oversight. I tried asking multiple times in today's 10 Forward Weekly, but seemed Kael was avoiding the question so much that the building then loss power lol.
    Temp spec was introduced in AoY, older ships didn't have it.
    Sure, Temp Op specialization didn't exist when the ship was first released, but because of the following facts, there is literally no reason for the Paradox to not have Temporal seating now.
    1. The specialization exists now.
    2. The specialization is in the ship's name.
    3. It shares a console set with the Temporal Science Vessel and Destroyer.
    4. Two of the abilities its starship trait alters are Temp Op abilities.
    That last reason is a big one to me because why should a ship have a trait that alters abilities it can't even have?
    Sure, it makes sense. But the most they'll likely do is make a second version that does have temp primary spec.

    I totally agree with sci321's reasoning for why the Paradox should've been included, & I also agree with markhawkman's conclusion of Cryptic's probable future action. It says a lot, to me at least, that they don't even address the question though.
Sign In or Register to comment.