test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

No Federation Carriers.

2456

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Katic wrote: »
    But where is there any kind of Hard Canon source for justifying actual fighters being a part of a Starfleet ships complement of carried craft?

    Where is there any kind of Hard Canon source for justifying that actual fighters weren't part of any Starfleet ship's complement of carried craft?

    This is a two way street, and no conclusive evidence exists for either argument. This makes the entire canon debate a complete and total dead end.
    Katic wrote: »
    The only Federation fighters we've ever seen onscreen were the Federation attack fighter see in DS9. They were warp-capable, and didn't need any kind of Carrier.

    This assumes that all warp-capable vessels are equally warp capable, also that all potential fighters are warp capable.
    Katic wrote: »
    Now, based on what we have seen of what Starfleet ships carry with them, I could maybe support a worker-bee functionality that repairs the ship out of battle, or maybe some Type 6 or better-armed Type 8 shuttles that go and gather anomalies (that send out distress calls if they're attacked0 or maybe Type 7 shuttles that will go and pick up important, mission-specific personnel instead of detouring the ship proper, or maybe even some Class 2 shuttles for short range reconnaissance (giving you number, type, and location of ships outside the normal sensor range). But fighters? No, I don't see it, and I don't want it.

    On the other hand... we've never seen any klingon fighters, nor any klingon carriers, so based on what we have seen of what KDF ships carry with them... well... you kind of end up in the same boat. And of course our observations are also forty years out of date.

    So yeah... although I'm not enthused by the idea of a Starfleet Carrier, there's really no valid argument against them beyond wanting the sides to remain distinct, and the UFP currently seems to lag there anyway.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Intrepidox wrote: »
    I don't even know why people are arguing canonicity,we're 40 years past anything canon and there already a ton of ships and such ingame that are non-canonical, whether or not carriers are canon for feds/klingons/romulans matters not, not a single damn bit.

    Cryptic have stated before that if players want something they'll try to add it, fact is whether you like it or not a ton of players would enjoy flying a federation carrier class ship, if you don't, then don't fly one if they get added, nobody is forcing you, it won't hurt you in any way whatsoever.

    Unless we enjoy FvF PvP, or play Klingons and enjoy FvK PvP, or would like to preserve the distinctiveness of each faction..

    If you think pet-spam is bad now, cluttering up your ability to target the opposing team, why would you ask for that problem to spread to all PvP situations?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Where have we seen a Romulan carrier in hard-canon, please?

    Like it or not the Scimitar was/is a carrier, in addition to being a battleship.

    40 fighters is a lot, whether it sounds like it or not - look at the effect you get when you have a Vo'Quv with 24 to'duj fighters all firing their own photon torpedoes.

    The thing that seperates the scimitar's 40 snubcraft from the 40~ shuttles used by a galaxy class is that the scimitar's scorpion fighters were designed specifically for combat, not for ferrying crew around, performing maintenance, or scanning anomalies.

    I hope the scimitar, when the romulan faction is released, becomes a carrier - or at the very least a battleship that can launch a few scorpion fighters. It deserves that much, and it certainly is 'canon'.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Just throwing my .02 in here.

    I'm against fed carriers myself, despite being a fed player at heart. I feel as though the game needs more to distinguish between the factions, and the Klingons have very few advantages over the feds compared to what the feds have over the Klinks, and so having carriers for the Klingons (but no Feds) is a good idea, I think.

    I'd also like to see more ground melee weapons for the Klingons too.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Streakfury wrote: »
    Just throwing my .02 in here.

    I'm against fed carriers myself, despite being a fed player at heart. I feel as though the game needs more to distinguish between the factions, and the Klingons have very few advantages over the feds compared to what the feds have over the Klinks, and so having carriers for the Klingons (but no Feds) is a good idea, I think.

    I'd also like to see more ground melee weapons for the Klingons too.

    more ground weapons in general would be nice...

    Carrier wise.... I think its unavoidable.. that is... If the Romulan Faction does not have a carrier... then the Feds wont... if the Rommies do.. then I see the Feds getting one.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Presumably, crews had access to toilets and condoms in Star Trek, even if they weren't on screen.

    Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    We haven't seen the toilets, but we learned that Sisko was expected to take some kind of shots but missed them, ending with Cassidy Yates pregnant. So condoms might no longer be used. (I presume that other diseases are long taken care off, possibly automaticaly filtered out by biofilters?).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I think its unavoidable.. that is... If the Romulan Faction does not have a carrier... then the Feds wont... if the Rommies do.. then I see the Feds getting one.

    I think that the Romulans will get a Carrier, but I think that's going to be part of the draw to play something other than a Fed.

    If you want a cloak on every ship, play a Romulan or a Klingon, if you want a Carrier, play a Romulan or a Klingon, if you want to avoid all those pesky non-combat missions, play a Romulan or a Klingon.

    If you want to counter Carriers and Cloaks and do something other than combat every once in a while, play a Fed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    if you want to avoid all those pesky non-combat missions, play a Romulan or a Klingon.

    If cryptic does romulan missions right, there will be plenty of non combat objectives to them. Romulans prefer to sneak around and act in the background over straight up combat, and I fully expect we'll see missions where you have to remain hidden or sabotage an enemy without being caught.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Please for the love of god. No matter how many people ask, beg, whine. A bunch of people and Myself want nothing to do with Federation Carriers. Not just because it is not Canonly possible. But because this isn't frickin Battlestar Galactica. This is Star Trek. We are the United Federation Of Planets. Not the Rebel Alliance.

    So please. Cryptic. I'm asking you this. I know you have no plans for this and I'm thankful for that. But can that be indefinably?

    Thank You.

    Support plz?

    It is "Canonly Possible". If the KDF could get it then so can the UFP. As I have said elsewhere, never once did we see Klingon Carriers in ANY of the shows or movies. We also have never seen EVERY single Federation starship.

    The most hardcore roleplay groups on the internet (do a search) have adopted the concept of carriers and Federation Marines. These people are major trek fans and they do not have a problem with adding to the mythos.

    ENTERPRISE introduced us to MACO, thus canonizing the concept of a Marine Corps in Star Trek. And who is to say that if they would have made another Series that would have fiollowed the events of Nemesis, that it couldnt have followed the crew of a Starfleet Carrier, first in a new line of Starships to counter all of those times when pesky, small ships were able to disable GALAXY-class ships because they were too small and maneuverable to get a good lock on...

    We have SEEN other civilizations in Trek use fighters. So we know that Fighters in Star Trek are canon. Do those civilizations have carriers? Who knows? As was pointed out to me in another thread, just because we never saw it doesnt mean it cannot be in there...

    As far as STO goes? We're in a new century. A new era of trek. New dynamics and conventions, as long as they remain true to the SPIRIT of star trek should not be shunned. After all, isnt the philosophy ofn IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination) at the core of it? Federation marines and Federation Carriers fits into that just as well as Federation ships with cloaking devices do.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Agreed with OP - please no Federation carriers!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    There are myriads of references to carriers on the Federation side, in fact even an entire game where you fly a carrier based strike-craft (ST Invasion, circa 99-ish) and we kind of have the visual appearance for the Yeager class in game as it is, one of the dedicated carrier classes (goes by a different name, can't recall which, one of the Intrepid variants).

    When it comes down to fleet dynamics, you need carriers. The federation is not blind to the fact that using strike-craft to harass enemy pickets is an important tactic to use in large-scale engagements and is generally speaking needed to counter the threat of enemies doing the same to you, that is unless some kind of vessel rigged specifically for anti-strike-craft is implemented. Look at all of the races in game, Klingons have carriers, Remans have vessels with hangars, as do the Cardassians.

    While I understand this is a game, not a real situation where actual and preconceived notions on naval tactics mean diddly-squat, It does look wrong. Am I really to accept that the Federation would refuse to have an answer to almost every race they've encountered using carriers on them? This is like the advent of real carriers, factions that were late in getting them were mulched by those with them, same with Submarines.

    I also find a delightful irony in all of you fighting over this. Roddenberry was an Airman himself, and by the way both the USS Enterprise and USS Yorktown, the slated original name for the Enterprise were both CV class carriers! You can't tell me he wouldn't want them on the Federation side now that special effects and gaming graphics allow for something not possible during his time due to budget limitations.

    Next point of interest. The Federation already has one canon and one game version of a fighter for implementing.
    Peregrine Fighter, in hard canon
    Valkyrie Fighter, in the game Invasion
    If either of these were used in place of some of the runabout and shuttle squads that mob the Terran Empire and Federation Enemy Signal Contacts, I wouldn't complain. NO ONE uses shuttles for these things, and if used the same way with a carrier, it would be a lot more acceptable.

    Now perhaps a compromise? If your complaint is seeing players with carriers, or just too many of them. Make them NPC only like a few of the ships seen in the Battle-group Omega lineup. Put them in a few missions as support and let people use them in foundry. There's just no way that an advanced military organization would go up against it's adversaries that use carriers without any itself.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    There are myriads of references to carriers on the Federation side, in fact even an entire game where you fly a carrier based strike-craft (ST Invasion, circa 99-ish) and we kind of have the visual appearance for the Yeager class in game as it is, one of the dedicated carrier classes (goes by a different name, can't recall which, one of the Intrepid variants).

    When it comes down to fleet dynamics, you need carriers. The federation is not blind to the fact that using strike-craft to harass enemy pickets is an important tactic to use in large-scale engagements and is generally speaking needed to counter the threat of enemies doing the same to you, that is unless some kind of vessel rigged specifically for anti-strike-craft is implemented. Look at all of the races in game, Klingons have carriers, Remans have vessels with hangars, as do the Cardassians.

    While I understand this is a game, not a real situation where actual and preconceived notions on naval tactics mean diddly-squat, It does look wrong. Am I really to accept that the Federation would refuse to have an answer to almost every race they've encountered using carriers on them? This is like the advent of real carriers, factions that were late in getting them were mulched by those with them, same with Submarines.

    I also find a delightful irony in all of you fighting over this. Roddenberry was an Airman himself, and by the way both the USS Enterprise and USS Yorktown, the slated original name for the Enterprise were both CV class carriers! You can't tell me he wouldn't want them on the Federation side now that special effects and gaming graphics allow for something not possible during his time due to budget limitations.

    Next point of interest. The Federation already has one canon and one game version of a fighter for implementing.
    Peregrine Fighter, in hard canon
    Valkyrie Fighter, in the game Invasion
    If either of these were used in place of some of the runabout and shuttle squads that mob the Terran Empire and Federation Enemy Signal Contacts, I wouldn't complain. NO ONE uses shuttles for these things, and if used the same way with a carrier, it would be a lot more acceptable.

    Now perhaps a compromise? If your complaint is seeing players with carriers, or just too many of them. Make them NPC only like a few of the ships seen in the Battle-group Omega lineup. Put them in a few missions as support and let people use them in foundry. There's just no way that an advanced military organization would go up against it's adversaries that use carriers without any itself.

    those valkyrie fighters look really cool, is that the game with the Typhon-class carrier? I love the Typhons design too
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Intrepidox wrote: »
    those valkyrie fighters look really cool, is that the game with the Typhon-class carrier? I love the Typhons design too

    Yup, same game. Probably just about my favorite Trek game after Voyager: Elite Force and Armada 1/2
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Katic wrote: »
    I think that the Romulans will get a Carrier, but I think that's going to be part of the draw to play something other than a Fed.

    If you want a cloak on every ship, play a Romulan or a Klingon, if you want a Carrier, play a Romulan or a Klingon, if you want to avoid all those pesky non-combat missions, play a Romulan or a Klingon.

    If you want to counter Carriers and Cloaks and do something other than combat every once in a while, play a Fed.

    Apparantly moaning about it is a good counter too ? :O
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    There are myriads of references to carriers on the Federation side, in fact even an entire game where you fly a carrier based strike-craft (ST Invasion, circa 99-ish) and we kind of have the visual appearance for the Yeager class in game as it is, one of the dedicated carrier classes (goes by a different name, can't recall which, one of the Intrepid variants).

    But no hard canon references, no dialogue in a show or movie, no effects shot of a starship launching fighters, nothing whatsoever, and if we opened up the floodgates of all soft canon Trek sources, this game would go from a Star Trek game to a pseudo BSG/Stargate/Star Wars mesh very quickly. Not because of people drawing from those sources directly, but because of other, soft canon sources, written by people who liked the Star Trek setting, but preferred the action, stories, and focus of those other scifi sources.

    Those other games? Really, I don't know how you all stand them, much less keep referring to them as if they are well-liked predecessors STO should draw from. I bought Bridge Commander, I tried my hand at Elite Force, I even went so far as to buy and download a digital copy of Starfleet Armada, and I have to wonder what is wrong with you people? Those games sucked, and their sales and reviews bear me out on this one.
    When it comes down to fleet dynamics, you need carriers. The federation is not blind to the fact that using strike-craft to harass enemy pickets is an important tactic to use in large-scale engagements and is generally speaking needed to counter the threat of enemies doing the same to you, that is unless some kind of vessel rigged specifically for anti-strike-craft is implemented. Look at all of the races in game, Klingons have carriers, Remans have vessels with hangars, as do the Cardassians.

    First off, I have never seen any kind of Cardassian ship launch any kind of pets, so I have to call you on that one. Secondly, battles in Star Trek have always been more like naval battles of the first World War than the air-sea battles of the second. If you think of the Peregrines as PT boats rather than fighters, small ships with small crews capable of operating independently, then the fighter/carrier idea breaks down.
    While I understand this is a game, not a real situation where actual and preconceived notions on naval tactics mean diddly-squat, It does look wrong. Am I really to accept that the Federation would refuse to have an answer to almost every race they've encountered using carriers on them? This is like the advent of real carriers, factions that were late in getting them were mulched by those with them, same with Submarines.

    Are you going to start arguing for Fed Cloaks now too (the equivalent of Star Trek Submarines)? Because I'll fight that too if I have to. The Federation has a higher regard for life than either the KDF or the RSE (Romulan Star Empire), it's simply out of character for the Feds to field single-man fighter craft. It's more likely that the Feds would focus on shielding, point-defense, or some other mitigating tactic which would remove the fighter threat.
    I also find a delightful irony in all of you fighting over this. Roddenberry was an Airman himself, and by the way both the USS Enterprise and USS Yorktown, the slated original name for the Enterprise were both CV class carriers! You can't tell me he wouldn't want them on the Federation side now that special effects and gaming graphics allow for something not possible during his time due to budget limitations.

    Yes, Roddenberry was an airmen, but he envisioned a future where we would try and use diplomacy instead of weapons, where exploration, discovery, and science were the predominant focus of mankind. He wrote Star Trek as a series of morality plays, combat and conflict were the last resort not because of budget or effects constraints, but because he didn't want to glorify violence.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Katic wrote: »
    But no hard canon references
    Are you going to start arguing for Fed Cloaks now too (the equivalent of Star Trek Submarines)? Because I'll fight that too if I have to. The Federation has a higher regard for life than either the KDF or the RSE (Romulan Star Empire), it's simply out of character for the Feds to field single-man fighter craft.

    so what you do is just put an explaination in-game where it says something along the lines of "The fighters advanced AI can predict when the craft is about to crash/die/explode/whatever, and beams the pilot out to the mothership, resulting in only a 3% casualty rate with fighter pilots as opposed to their 20th century predecessors."

    or make them drone fighters with no pilot at all.

    really.. anything you can say against the idea of a fed carrier is easily put down with a little thinking if you try.
    But no hard canon references, no dialogue in a show or movie, no effects shot of a starship launching fighters, nothing whatsoever, and if we opened up the floodgates of all soft canon Trek sources, this game would go from a Star Trek game to a pseudo BSG/Stargate/Star Wars mesh very quickly. Not because of people drawing from those sources directly, but because of other, soft canon sources, written by people who liked the Star Trek setting, but preferred the action, stories, and focus of those other scifi sources.

    Those other games? Really, I don't know how you all stand them, much less keep referring to them as if they are well-liked predecessors STO should draw from. I bought Bridge Commander, I tried my hand at Elite Force, I even went so far as to buy and download a digital copy of Starfleet Armada, and I have to wonder what is wrong with you people? Those games sucked, and their sales and reviews bear me out on this one.

    also, you do realise that STO isn't hard canon either? it's just as non-canon or soft-canon as those previous games, but like i've already said, arguing about canonicity on this issue is completely pointless.

    and with regard to your opinion on those previous games, well, your dislike of them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Intrepidox wrote: »
    I don't even know why people are arguing canonicity,we're 40 years past anything canon and there already a ton of ships and such ingame that are non-canonical.

    I agree, Canon is the last defense of those whom do or don't want change, depending on thier personal views.
    Frankly I find the concept of hard and soft canon to be silly in repsecs to STO as a MMO.
    Hard canon more so than soft as hard canon only followed the actions and adventures of a series of Captains & crews that were only a small part of the bigger picture of what was going on in the genre at anytime.
    To adhere STO to the actions of a small part of Star Fleets massive personal as the only "true" canon and to virtuall ignore the other stories and pivotal Captains that would have existed takes away from the game as a whole and lessens the play experience to basically copy-catting in the footsteps of Kirk,Picard, Sisko and Janeway.


    As to the carrier, I disagree with its use by the feds based soley on the belief its OP. Such an belief gives the impression that its is wanted strictly because they found it better than thier own vessel choices much like a child usaully wants the shiny to of the other kids based on the perception it more fun than what they already posses.
    I say give the feds as thier first carrier an exact duplicate of teh Vov as it will be after the "downbuffing", so they can experience firsthand the grief of teh KDF players whom feel its been "downbuffed" harshly. Then after such is released allow the Akira light carrier concept that has been bounced around the forums as their Kar'fi counter part.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    wrote:
    so what you do is just put an explaination in-game where it says something along the lines of "The fighters advanced AI can predict when the craft is about to crash/die/explode/whatever, and beams the pilot out to the mothership, resulting in only a 3% casualty rate with fighter pilots as opposed to their 20th century predecessors."

    or make them drone fighters with no pilot at all.

    really.. anything you can say against the idea of a fed carrier is easily put down with a little thinking if you try.



    also, you do realise that STO isn't hard canon either? it's just as non-canon or soft-canon as those previous games, but like i've already said, arguing about canonicity on this issue is completely pointless.

    and with regard to your opinion on those previous games, well, your dislike of them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
    Then let's not talk canon.

    Let's talk about the "feel" of Startrek. If you think of a typical Startrek battle, do you see a bunch of small fighters darting around larger vessels? Or do you see two large vessels duking it out with phasers, disruptors and torpedoes? If you think of the various fleet battles of DS9, did we see countless of waves of fighters? Do you see a wing of fighters acting as a defense shields intercepting fighters and incoming torpedoes?
    In a typical Startrek episode, did we see much discussions going on between Fighter pilots, the CAG discussing today's flight schedule with the Captain or the First Officer?

    Maybe you do. I definitely do not. That never happened in Startrek. It doesn't fit its theme or its aesthetics.

    Or try to think about how fighters and carriers work in our world. Carriers are moderate tough slow-moving vessels with a long range and weak maneuverability, fighters are fragile short range vessels with a low range and high maneuverability. This looks like a pretty useful combination overall.
    In Startrek, what are fighters or shuttles? Fragile Short Range vessels with a short range with a high maneuverability. Their "Carriers" are tough long range vessels with high speeds and low maneuverability. This combination really doesn't look as compelling anymore.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I don't want Fed Carriers, for a technical reason, they lag my computer alot, don't mind the KDF having them cause then if I don't want as much lag I just fight other Feds.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Katic wrote: »
    But no hard canon references, no dialogue in a show or movie, no effects shot of a starship launching fighters, nothing whatsoever, and if we opened up the floodgates of all soft canon Trek sources, this game would go from a Star Trek game to a pseudo BSG/Stargate/Star Wars mesh very quickly. Not because of people drawing from those sources directly, but because of other, soft canon sources, written by people who liked the Star Trek setting, but preferred the action, stories, and focus of those other scifi sources.

    Those other games? Really, I don't know how you all stand them, much less keep referring to them as if they are well-liked predecessors STO should draw from. I bought Bridge Commander, I tried my hand at Elite Force, I even went so far as to buy and download a digital copy of Starfleet Armada, and I have to wonder what is wrong with you people? Those games sucked, and their sales and reviews bear me out on this one.

    As has been said before. It is the same for the Klingons. In fact, I think I've only ever seen the Remans with hard canon having strike-craft in Nemesis with the Scorpions and the aforementioned Peregrine. As for "whats wrong with us", Star Trek is a Niche genre, and you really should see some of the thrash reviews this game gets.

    First off, I have never seen any kind of Cardassian ship launch any kind of pets, so I have to call you on that one. Secondly, battles in Star Trek have always been more like naval battles of the first World War than the air-sea battles of the second. If you think of the Peregrines as PT boats rather than fighters, small ships with small crews capable of operating independently, then the fighter/carrier idea breaks down.

    The first carriers started appearing in WW1, all be it more like barges with wood planks and one or two biplanes, the principle was alive and well. About the Peregrines, they were definitely strike-craft and usually deployed by Akiras via oversized shuttle bays a source, yes I am aware it is expanded universe content, but this one has roots in actual DS9 content. Another thing, countering a prior argument from someone else... just because a fighter is Warp capable, the idea it can move about without a carrier or away from a dedicated port is insane! You'd be sleeping more than likely in your seat and aside from emergency rations and possibly a replicator, something that small would be inhumane to keep a pilot in for the warp times in Trek

    Are you going to start arguing for Fed Cloaks now too (the equivalent of Star Trek Submarines)? Because I'll fight that too if I have to. The Federation has a higher regard for life than either the KDF or the RSE (Romulan Star Empire), it's simply out of character for the Feds to field single-man fighter craft. It's more likely that the Feds would focus on shielding, point-defense, or some other mitigating tactic which would remove the fighter threat.

    No, I'm fine with the Defiant and the Galaxy X being the only two federation ships that can cloak, though I do see the X as something of a bad joke. I also did say in my original post that an acceptable alternative to a carrier would be some kind of vessel geared more towards anti-strike-craft would probably work fine for this.

    Yes, Roddenberry was an airmen, but he envisioned a future where we would try and use diplomacy instead of weapons, where exploration, discovery, and science were the predominant focus of mankind. He wrote Star Trek as a series of morality plays, combat and conflict were the last resort not because of budget or effects constraints, but because he didn't want to glorify violence.

    I fail to see relevancy here. There are literally thousands of pilosophers that are on par with his hopes for humanity that have said things along the lines of, "One cannot have peace without preparing for war". Just because you stand for peace does not by any means justify gaps in fleet structure. Politics aside, look at the US Navy. They outwardly use the slogan "A global force for good" but yet they wisely cover all of their bases for the inevitability that some mean mother hubbard is going to come skull-cracking some day. This is also a franchise where we saw the use of a class of ship designated "Sovereign" Now, lets look at the definitionof that. That REALLY seems peaceful. And anticipating any anti-Bermin rants, how many series was he responsible for? Aside from Enterprise, how many were canceled? Roddenberry's original got the axe because the ratings dove and the more recent series are just as relevant

    My bottom line, peaceful or not the Federation is in a state of war with the Klingons, while they would keep seeking diplomatic ways to end such a conflict, they would not and could not get by without some kind of answer to an enemy using carriers, be it their own, dedicated ships to attack fighters/bombers or at the very least field modifications to take down such vessels. That last would not entirely be practical, draining ship power to swat flies instead of directly attack is not the best of ideas.

    I also looked back a bit, while I understand where you were coming from with the faction distinctions, I can name two other MMO's that offer both sides equivalent options. Star Wars Galaxies, whichever faction you were in you got the same class options, PVP functioned and it was distinctive. World of Warcraft. Aside from where you grind, it's the same thing.

    ten char......
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Katic wrote: »
    But no hard canon references, no dialogue in a show or movie, no effects shot of a starship launching fighters, nothing whatsoever, and if we opened up the floodgates of all soft canon Trek sources, this game would go from a Star Trek game to a pseudo BSG/Stargate/Star Wars mesh very quickly. Not because of people drawing from those sources directly, but because of other, soft canon sources, written by people who liked the Star Trek setting, but preferred the action, stories, and focus of those other scifi sources.
    .

    Soft canon should be kept seperate from fanfiction when it comes to adding elements to STO due to the belief that fanfiction is too biased in its perceptions od teh ST genre.
    Ideas from soft canon should be pulled from liscenced products (books, games, RPG elements) aproved by holders of the IP, not from the fans of the IP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I'm only going to respond to one thing in your post Shinzon, because I've actually got to get off and get some sleep, but both Galaxies and WoW saw a dip in subs right after they equaled out the factions. The dip in WoW was momentary such things always are with WoW), but Galaxies has never recovered.

    For a niche game like STO, such a dip could be fatal.

    Intrepidox: Fine, lets ignore canon and reason here for a moment. Giving the Feds Carriers would only make FvF PvP just as much of a targeting nightmare as FvK PvP currently is. Also, it would just be more Fed-favoritism in a game that seriously needs to have two factions, not just the one, regardless of your personal preferences.

    Throw in the possibility of game entropy, of sameness and lack of distinctiveness, and Fed Carriers is just a bad idea.

    And as I said, and was specifically directing at you, wanting to play a Carrier but not wanting to play a Klingon is not a valid reason for the Feds to get Carriers.

    And if we want to go into hypothetical explanations for Carriers, OK, how do your emergency beam outs get through the Mother ships shields?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Katic wrote: »
    And if we want to go into hypothetical explanations for Carriers, OK, how do your emergency beam outs get through the Mother ships shields?

    they have the shield frequencies.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Katic wrote: »
    I'm only going to respond to one thing in your post Shinzon, because I've actually got to get off and get some sleep, but both Galaxies and WoW saw a dip in subs right after they equaled out the factions. The dip in WoW was momentary such things always are with WoW), but Galaxies has never recovered.

    For a niche game like STO, such a dip could be fatal.

    Intrepidox: Fine, lets ignore canon and reason here for a moment. Giving the Feds Carriers would only make FvF PvP just as much of a targeting nightmare as FvK PvP currently is. Also, it would just be more Fed-favoritism in a game that seriously needs to have two factions, not just the one, regardless of your personal preferences.

    Throw in the possibility of game entropy, of sameness and lack of distinctiveness, and Fed Carriers is just a bad idea.

    And as I said, and was specifically directing at you, wanting to play a Carrier but not wanting to play a Klingon is not a valid reason for the Feds to get Carriers.

    And if we want to go into hypothetical explanations for Carriers, OK, how do your emergency beam outs get through the Mother ships shields?
    I played Galaxies from the get-go. Giving factions the same content did not kill it, the NGE did.
    As for WoW, it's evolution is eerily close to STO, its first year was horrible and it turned around and became the game everyone else aspires to be.

    I never at any point said I did not want to play as a Klingon. I have a Klingon character and use Raptor classes and intend on keeping those Raptors up until level cap.

    Emergency beamouts could work just as easily as Borg penetrating shields with their transports by simply matching the amplitude, modulation and frequency of it. Also possible is the concept of ejection, or beaming into space inside an atmospheric suit with an emergency transponder for retrieval by any able ship. Pilots always get the raw deal, they accept this going into the field. Pilots aren't issued sidearms to fight their enemies, rather avoid what their enemies have caused. Oh, and yes, the federation would never "throw away lives" not like it's part of a Bridge Officer test that Diana Troi took in Next Generation.

    I also never said anything about only having one faction, I like playing Federation because it has the most content to offer and the constant PVP and repeat-grind which is the KDF seriously bores me. That does not mean I want the Carrier for the federation because I don't have the patience to get it on the Klingon. I already expressed why I want to see it. Fed-favoritism exists because the majority plays this game to be a member of the Federation, the Devs themselves have said this. I do not see at all how getting a new class of ship is favoritism when all it is doing is granting a ship class that would in no way throw balance off.

    Targeting is not that hard. Point. Click. Mash spacebar. If missed, hit escape, repeat.

    As for sameness, I would understand this a lot better if it was just copy-pasted with exactly the same appearance, stats, consoles etc. So far the ships have been fairly distinct in what they can do, and the Klingons are fairly OP having the ability to have cannons on just about all of their ships, something the Federation could never hope for. I fail to see how strike-craft would have any impact at all on making the game fatally symmetrical.

    I will also say that this is beginning to feel more like a personal attack now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    All i have to say is a Fed Carrier is obsurd and should not happen, PERIOD.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    have you tried space pvp against a group that solely consists of klingon carriers? it is insane.

    I am so glad that the new release notes provide a "weakness" to them in making their launch bays rely on their aux power system. that should hopefully keep the balance of power without having to give feds their own carriers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    have you tried space pvp against a group that solely consists of klingon carriers? it is insane.

    I am so glad that the new release notes provide a "weakness" to them in making their launch bays rely on their aux power system. that should hopefully keep the balance of power without having to give feds their own carriers.

    I can't speak for everyone, but PvP has nothing to do with me wanting a fed carrier :eek:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Would it have made sense in WW2 for America to forestall the development of carriers because the japanese had them? the japanese were also fairly reckless with the lives of their pilots (note kamikazees) and we werent as a culture quite as willing to accept thousands dying on suicide missions, did that stop us from using fighters? no. because if the enemy has an advantage you need to negate their advantage because it would save lives in the long run.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Obviously u went up against a Klingon premade pvp team if it was all carriers, a fed Pug or for that matter even a klingon pug does not stand a chance against a Klingon premade carrier team. If a Fed and Klingon premade went against this group it would be a different story, hince TSI, Wizards, TRIBBLE., QEW, LORE, SVKE, Laffimlla to name a few, they would have had a an even playing field against such a team for they make good premades
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    It's been my experience in PvP that fighters are just there to clutter up targeting. They are not dangerous, and the only useful function they serve is to draw fire away from ships that actually count. It should be noted that this is only a problem for STO players; an actual Starfleet vessel would certainly have more sophisticated targetting systems than a Tab key.

    BoPs and frigates are another matter; but I've always thought it was stupid that they were being launched from carriers anyway.

    The only reason fighters make any kind of sense for Klingons; is that the chance to take on a starship in single combat must seem pretty glorious to the crazier warriors.

    The federation is not particularly concerned with glory; and anyone psychotic enough to want to take on a battleship in a glorified shuttle would probably get kicked out of the service following an extensive psych evaluation.

    I primarily believe that the Feds should not get carriers for reasons of faction distinctiveness; but I also think it just doesn't make sense for them to even want them. They are just wasteful and inefficient.
Sign In or Register to comment.