It's been pointed out a couple times, but sensor analysis would probably fit the ticket. Fits with the hybird-science ship philosophy of the carriers as well and gives the KDF more than a single ship with the ability.
Vo'quv gets subsystem targeting, Khar'fi gets sensor analysis, Varanus gets both. I imagine it like each carrier is half a sci ship, but they are opposite halves. Just seems to feel 'right' and symmetrical, if you know what I mean.
That being said i'm in full agreement that there is a risk of doing too much too soon.
Sensor Analysis might be too much. The Kar'Fi can combine Sensor Analysis with rank III versions of the BTSS powers, and it has 7 weaopns instead of 6. So it could provide overall a very significant buff to the Kar'Fi.
-Only being able to preemptively counter an invulnerability power still seems a bit off. Thoughts on making phase shift vulnerable to PSW like ablative is?
How about Gravity Well and Tyken's Rift instead of PSW. Tyken's Rift even drains power, so can weaken the phase shift itself (of course keeping a Kar'Fi inside it without a tractor will be hard, e.g. only can be done by a team of GW + TR users.)
-While the hangar buff is only going to increase the maximum frigates from three to four, they can now be deployed twice as fast, which could end up being problematic. Any thoughts on a slight increase in hangar cooldown to compensate?
That makes sense to me.
-Still waiting on any thoughts you have IRT ablative armor to getting a similar aux drain to phase shift? Or perhaps create a bit more complexity and instead implement the minimum aux (eg. 50) to cast/maintain idea? That way both ablative and phase shift would be vulnerable to aux draining, but in different ways. I think it would create a bit more interesting gameplay.
I think minimum 50 aux power is no drawback - there is no point in running Ablative with power put to other systems then Aux usually, as any offensive and healing potential you would have in Ablative Armor is usually related to Science Powers. But that is why energy drain could actually "hurt", as it weakens your own powers.
...
One thing I notice is:
Does it really require 2 Hangar Bays and 4-6 pets out to compensate the loss of one weapon slot compared to a Cruiser, or 2 hangar bays and 1 weapon slot to compensate the loss of 6 points of turn rate on a Science Vessel?
I definitely thing pets need to get a better effectiveness per pe.
Becomes untargetable (you actually lose targeting lock on it)
Gains stealth against ships roughly outside of normal combat range
Cannot launch fighters or frigates
Cannot use torpedos or mines
Costs 10 Auxiliary Power a second to maintain; power will drop if run out of Aux power
Other general carrier changes under consideration:
Fighters gain improved defense to compensate and (possibly) the ability to have a modest chance to take out subsystems depending on the type of fighter
Kar'fi frigates are unchanged (making this a 25% net gain in potential frigates, so a buff to the Kar'fi's offensive power, but a fairly modest one when standard weapons are also taken into account)
Fighters, BoP and frigates may be launched without a target and out of combat
Fighters, BoP and frigates remain out after combat
Thoughts? Better? Worse?
This reads as if the phase-shifted player can still use all his powers and energy weapons. Projectile and energy weapons are not balanced against each other. Just because a ship with ablative armor can still use torpedoes, it does not mean that a phase-shifted ship being able to use energy weapons is balanced.
Aux drain sounds good (if properly implemented, see EPS etc.), but I still think there should be a counter that can be applied when the ability is active (or give it a really long visible cast time so that target aux can be applied in time), just like for RSP and ablative armor. Shockwave or CPB could be that counter.
Fighters gaining target subsystem abilities? Bad idea.
More Karfi frigates: Keep in mind that the aceton field from the frigates can be a real problem for the other team. The damage the frigates do is not that much of an issue, but the damage reduction on enemies from aceton field is.
Launching pets out of combat: This means that you can have the initial engagement of the teams with a full set of pets. When fighting multiple carriers, it often becomes mandatory to suppress their pets because at full strength they can overwhelm the other team. Allowing pets launching out of combat means that the team can start the fight with all pets out and this could have major balance implications.
A bit unrelated: Why don't you form a Cryptic team for the upcoming OPVP tournament? (See the thread in the PVP forums.)
Sensor Analysis might be too much. The Kar'Fi can combine Sensor Analysis with rank III versions of the BTSS powers, and it has 7 weaopns instead of 6. So it could provide overall a very significant buff to the Kar'Fi.
Well, science consoles got nerfed again (plus equipping phase shift takes up a science console in the proposed implementation), so maximum drain isn't going to be too extreme. That 33.3% increase happens over the course of a minute and breaks when you change or lose targeting lock, which diminishes it's usefulness.
By itself I don't think adding sensor analysis would be a horribly unbalanced addition, but there is danger it would put things over the top combined with the other buffs. I'm mainly a fan of adding SA due to the elegance and symmetry I see it creating between the Klingon 'science' ships.
How about Gravity Well and Tyken's Rift instead of PSW. Tyken's Rift even drains power, so can weaken the phase shift itself (of course keeping a Kar'Fi inside it without a tractor will be hard, e.g. only can be done by a team of GW + TR users.)
GW as well as Tykens + TB will not work well because the phased player is not targetable. Even then it's a mess gameplay wise. Having to switch between PSW to hard counter Intrepids into GW, CBP or some other skill to hard counter Khar'fis is overly complex and convoluted. PSW should work fine for both. It makes sense that two very similar abilities should be given similar counters.
I'm especially wary of Hilbert's suggestion making CBP a potential counter given that it is a lower level skill than PSW and also has significantly greater range. As a counter, it would ruin balance vs. ablative and make the phase shift too easy to circumvent -- possibly to the point of worthlessness vs. semi-decent teams sporting alternate boffs for the occasion.
I think minimum 50 aux power is no drawback - there is no point in running Ablative with power put to other systems then Aux usually, as any offensive and healing potential you would have in Ablative Armor is usually related to Science Powers. But that is why energy drain could actually "hurt", as it weakens your own powers.
Aux drain like the Khar'fi would work too, for sure. 50 was a number that I plucked out of thin air merely for the sake of example. My thought was that both skills could have the same counter (aux draining tactics), but somewhat different approaches in regards to how the counter works. In essence I wanted to remove the convolution of differing counters for similar abilities with an eye for keeping gameplay varied between the factions.
As I tested the prototype of it today with no special equipment and doing nothing funky with your Auxiliary power, being at around 50 Aux would last the full ten seconds.
A final thought in regards to phase shift: If 50 aux is enough to last through the full 10 seconds of drain, then higher aux drain is warranted. No competent Khar'fi pilot is going to run aux that low. His aux dependent skills will get weaker towards the end of the duration, but the drain has little effect on the significant function of the skill, which is the invulnerability aspect.
Quick idea:
Phase shift drains aux at a rate that removes 100 aux (or some other relatively high number) from a normal ship in 10 seconds
Maximum duration of phase shift is increased to 15 seconds (or some other number greater than 10)
This has the potential to create more interesting gameplay:
Most pilots are going to last about 10 seconds --perhaps less-- and when the ability deactivates will have no aux power left
Preemptively draining aux with a skill such as BTAS significantly decreases the duration of the ability, and gives the caster a small window to mitigate that drain (eg. by consuming an aux battery)
However, with good power management the caster is able to extend the uptime of the skill moderately
The end result is an ability that is more alive and dynamic, with more 'play' area. There is a diverse set of possibilities based on the actions of the caster and his opponent.
It will. As I tested the prototype of it today with no special equipment and doing nothing funky with your Auxiliary power, being at around 50 Aux would last the full ten seconds.
Under this conditions it should be more like 20 drain per second, meaning that you would need 100ish Aux energy to last 10 seconds. Also the same should apply to Ablative Armor.
Under this conditions it should be more like 20 drain per second, meaning that you would need 100ish Aux energy to last 10 seconds. Also the same should apply to Ablative Armor.
Well, not as high as 20/s as regen has to be taken into account, but it does seem like drain should go up. Look at my example just above your post.
What are the chances of removing some weapon slots on the Vo'quv and give it more hangar slots?
Since let us say the Kar'Fi gets buffed what is the real difference between the 2 carriers, 1 has more weapons and a better pet the frigate, the other more survivability but more variety in pets, but both would have 2 hangars.
I know the playstyle will be different but if some of the supposed changes go through how will people decide which ship to fly.
What are the chances of removing some weapon slots on the Vo'quv and give it more hangar slots?
Since let us say the Kar'Fi gets buffed what is the real difference between the 2 carriers, 1 has more weapons and a better pet the frigate, the other more survivability but more variety in pets, but both would have 2 hangars.
I know the playstyle will be different but if some of the supposed changes go through how will people decide which ship to fly.
What are the real benefits for flying either.
I'd rather have the opposite,
allow us the option of replacing our hanger bays with weapons.
( I'd love a hanger bay full of missiles i could volley off at those pesky Feds.)
I'd rather have the opposite,
allow us the option of replacing our hanger bays with weapons.
( I'd love a hanger bay full of missiles i could volley off at those pesky Feds.)
Maybe the new console could be a Hanger console instead of A science console? Then we'd have to make a choice between more pets and survivability..?
I'd rather have the opposite,
allow us the option of replacing our hanger bays with weapons.
( I'd love a hanger bay full of missiles i could volley off at those pesky Feds.)
Ideally, there must be a way to do both!
I would like the ability for Carriers to launch something other than pets. Some kind of special torpedo launcher or a disruptor javelin.
Maybe the new console could be a Hanger console instead of A science console? Then we'd have to make a choice between more pets and survivability..?
If that was the case I'd actually use the phase shift console, as it stands now, the borg console is far more usefull to me as a DPS Kar-Fi, & using it as a sci console is pretty much the only way to use it on the Kar-Fi.
I'm not replacing a 2nd sci console with a panic button. I'd get more use from RSP I think, as it would leave me in better shape when the power is finished, than the phase shift console will. It seems to me that if you use Phase shift as it is being considered, after 10 seconds you're worse off, as you have less aux power to heal yourself, & you cannot be healed from teammates while you use it. No thanks. :eek:
The only use i could see for the console would be phasing through terrain features to escape a roflstomping. Allowing me to equip it in a hanger means i might get some use out of it.
Heretic, thank you for posting this and being receptive to feedback .
You're right that there is and has always been a great deal of......talk about the carriers, and while I do think that the new phase console is cool and a nice 10 second invulnerability, I think that it's only going to add to the QQ side of things .
So, what to do then? Assuming that the Phase console goes in with it's current form, a well piloted Kar'fi is still a vicious machine (just potentially meaner), and the Vo'Quv is an unstoppable monster (and it has nothing to do with FAW); and spam will still be an issue.
So here is what I propose: Convert our current 2 carriers into a functional 3-carrier system, each with a specific role in mind and hangar bay options that are unique to each carrier (and requires no changes to the fighter interface). The detailed changes to the carriers and the new carrier are as follows in the following order:
Kar'Fi-Class Assault Carrier
-As the changes to the carriers go, the Kar'fi is the least changed (hence why I start with it). The ship would take on the role of a front-line fire support craft with heavy on-board armament along with strong deployable escort craft.
[list=0]Set-up:[list=0]
[*]BO Layout: Transfer the Ensign Science to Ensign Eng.; the rest unchanged
[*]Hangar specifics:[list=0]
[*]2 bays: S'kul fighters and Fer'jai frigates; 15 km launch range[list=0]
[*]Fighters: 3x3 (3 waves of 3 fighters each)
[*]Frigates: 2x1[/list][/list]
[*]Weapon Layout: Unchanged
[*]Console Layout: Unchanged
[*]Maneuverability: Unchanged
[*]Hull and Shield Strength: 35,000; 125%
[*]Weapon Restrictions: Unable to mount a mine launcher (does not apply to frigates; able to use all other weapons)
[*]Specials: Phase shift console and innate subsystem targeting[/list][/list]
qa'HoS-Class Strike Carrier
-The new strike carrier, designed to go behind enemy lines in conjunction with other craft (or alone) and deliver strong and mobile firepower against the target. The qa'HoS is a mid-sized craft (between a raptor and a battlecruiser) which while giving it significantly better maneuverability than it's counterparts, does result in the ship being able to carry fewer on-board weapon systems to accommodate the fighter bays and support systems, however the fighters deployed from the qa'HoS make up the difference in firepower.
[list=0]Set-up:[list=0]
[*]BO Layout*: [list=0]
[*]Tactical: Cmdr; Lt.
[*]Engineering: Lt.; Ensign
[*]Science: Lt. Cmdr[/list]
[*]Hangar Specifics: [list=0]
[*]2 Bays: To'Duj Mobile Squadron**, Siphon Pods; 15km launch range[list=0]
[*]Fighters: 1x4
[*]Pods: 2x2[/list][/list]
[*]Weapon Layout: [list=0]
[*]3 Fore, 2 Aft[/list]
[*]Console Layout: [list=0]
[*]Tactical: 4
[*]Eng: 2
[*]Sci: 3[/list]
[*]Maneuverability: 12
[*]Hull and Shield Strength: 30,000; 100%
[*]Weapon Restrictions: Unable to mount mine launchers (able to use all other weapons)
[*]Specials: Standard Cloaking Device
[/list][/list]
Vo'Quv-Class Fleet Carrier
-The Vo'Quv is a massive ship, easily one of the largest one of the two factions, and it's immense size allows it to carry a significant number of deployable craft to attack enemy forces or support friendly ones. Additionally the vessel carries advanced sensor and communications equipment that allows the vessel to operate at a distance and direct the efforts of the fleet with near impunity.
[list=0]Set-up:[list=0]
[*]BO Layout: Reduce the Lt. Cmdr Eng to a Lt.; rest unchanged
[*]Weapon Layout: 2 Fore, 2 Aft
[*]Hangar Specifics: [list=0]
[*]4 Bays: To'Duj Fighters, Birds-of-Prey, Shield Repair Shuttles, Hazard Shuttles*** (35km launch range)[list=0]
[*]Fighters: 2x4
[*]BoP: 2x1
[*]SRS: 2x3 (limit of 2 hangars)
[*]HS: 2x3 (limit of 2 hangars)[/list][/list]
[*]Console Layout: Unchanged
[*]Maneuverability: 3
[*]Hull and Shield Strength: 32,000; 100%
[*]Weapon Restrictions: None
[*]Specials: Rapid Deployment****, Advanced Long-Range Sensor Grid (Passive 40km sensor range)
[*]Penalty: Evasive Maneuvers speed bonus reduced by 1/2
[/list][/list]
*: Similar to the MVAM Prometheus layout
**: The name is simply a placeholder, they would be fighters along those same lines, just a single wave instead of 2
***: Hazard Shuttles are shuttles that carry Hazard Emitters (go figure), and follow their target assisting as possible
****: A Vo'Quv unique ability that boosts the speed of their deployables to 85 for 5 seconds in order to cover large areas quickly to reach a target (180 second cooldown)
Fed-Vo'Quv counter
-Obviously the reworked Vo'Quv would pose a serious problem to the Federation teams as they are, therefore grant all Federation Science Ships the innate ability to conduct a sensor sweep that reveals all uncloaked ships/units within 35km of the sweeping ship (120 second cooldown). That way, the Federation players would have a chance to find a launching Vo'Quv and stop it or at least occupy it.
Spam:
-Yes I'm about to talk about clutter, the irony is not lost on me given that I was just advocating for another carrier....
Fighters
I almost titled this "Spam", but my professionalism won out this time (barely). Right now, fighters die too fast, yet there are, frankly, too many on the screen for performance and targeting purposes. There are some user interface issues that I think are the biggest problem here, but in parallel I think there is some benefit to simply cutting down the sheer number of fighters, but making them more effective individually.
That's a double-edged sword, making them more effective will run the problem of the instagibs that were present during the testing of the redone carrier systems 8 months ago, but at the same time if you reduce their numbers then you run the risk of making it too easy to cripple the output of a carrier (and force players to the heavier alternatives for the survivability).
The solution to the technical and performance problems isn't in the carriers themselves, it's in the other ships that are generating significant clutter on their own, like cruisers running two mine launchers, the special abilities of the varanus and the marauder, the scorpion fighters, etc.; if those are changed then the carriers can go on with life. So I suggest:
-Mines: Increase all the launcher cooldowns significantly but increase their yields and explosive radius; that way there will be less on the field but they will do more damage (so as not to be useless) and makes it so that dispersal patterns would be necessary to get any significant number of them out. Basically people wouldn't have them on auto anymore and would be forced to use them sparingly and tactically.
-Marauder Cruiser*: Reduce the fighter spawns to 1/3 what they are now
-Varanus*: Half the spawns
-Scorpion Fighters: Make it so you cannot get the item twice (sorry I'm tired and I don't remember if you can get it more than once)
-Breen Transphasic Torp: Reduce the spawned mines by half
*: The alternative is to remove their special abilities altogether (if you want fighters then fly a carrier) and give them an extra console slot to bring them up to par with their fed counterparts as the trade-off.
Additional BO fighter abilities:
-More of a question for you here Heretic: Is there room or any consideration for new Bridge Officer power(s) that effect the performance of Fighters? Additionally, how difficult would it be to implement them if it was deemed possible.
Anyway, that's all I can think of at the moment, hope yall enjoyed the read
Launching pets out of combat: This means that you can have the initial engagement of the teams with a full set of pets. When fighting multiple carriers, it often becomes mandatory to suppress their pets because at full strength they can overwhelm the other team. Allowing pets launching out of combat means that the team can start the fight with all pets out and this could have major balance implications.
I'm not convinced it will for 2 reasons:
1) Fewer pets total. While yes, they'll be supposedly equal in power to what we have now, just fewer ships in the air... this also means that shooting one down is significantly more meaningful as it's a greater % of the overall firepower pie. So I think before we can say this will be a problem we really need to see how survivable the altered fighters are.
2) While this can be an issue in games with multiple carriers, in a game with a single carrier that carrier can be shut down extremely easily at present.* There are some workarounds, like spawning fighters at 15km out while they're dueling someone else.
The problem is... if you're 15km out you aren't using any of your BO powers, meaning your ally who's taking the beating for you isn't being healed, and you aren't doing any extra damage either. At that point you're merely a fighter dispensary, and while fighters are good... they usually aren't good enough to do the job by themselves.
And of course that assumes no one is killing them as the come into range as well.
*I know, I've been that carrier fairly often. It's pretty obnoxious never getting more than 6 fighters out at a time because they're all slagged shortly after take off; and those 6 of course don't get to do much for precisely that reason.
I am inclined to agree that the combination is unlikely to be overpowered; it would not surprise me if the Kar'fi winds up requiring more than this, but I am loathe to tweak too many things at once. We'll see, though. Where the Vo'quv has sustained surviveability, this will give the Kar'fi punctuated spike surviveability. I suspect the degree of its value will depend on playstyle to a greater extent than the Vo'quv, which will probably always be more forgiving.
Geko was suggesting making the To'Duj available on the Kar'fi as well, so that's a possibility. It would be nice if it's something other than the To'Duj fighters. Make it have something that's got some sort of debuffing capability, like what the orion fighters have. Drones that do little damage but can help cripple the enemy would be a nice alternative to subsystems targetting, since the battlecarrier lacks that
It will. As I tested the prototype of it today with no special equipment and doing nothing funky with your Auxiliary power, being at around 50 Aux would last the full ten seconds. Have this affect ablative too. 50+ aux would make ablative last the full duration, but if if it goes down for any reason the ablative armor collapses prematurely
Someone made a dismissive comment about controlling 'pets' as a Carrier. Clearly they don't understand the concept of a Carrier, or they have never played masterminds before. Either way, Carriers would be a lot more interesting if you could send them to attack (at any range) send them in a defensive holding pattern, and keep them on follow if you want to avoid one conflict to engage another. Command and Control is what the Carrier is about, and you can't properly do that as of now. You simply hope they attack what you want them to, at times. If there is too much spam around you, you can not do that. Anyone saying otherwise is either clueless or just hates the class of ship.
While I realize that control is difficult to create, this would probably be the single best thing you could add to the Carrier class vessels.
I agree completely with this. Feds have caught onto this - all you need to do is have one player lure the BOP off and they follow like zombies. There's no way to direct them in times of crisis!
1) Fewer pets total. While yes, they'll be supposedly equal in power to what we have now, just fewer ships in the air... this also means that shooting one down is significantly more meaningful as it's a greater % of the overall firepower pie. So I think before we can say this will be a problem we really need to see how survivable the altered fighters are.
But if you spread that firepower around in smaller hit point packages, they also die quicker, so you start losing firepower earlier. Also, all kinds of AOEs are magnified against groups.
The only "critical" point might become if it becomes economical to use single target DPS buffs against pets as well, because that would mean you don't need to adapt at all to the presence of carriers.
The issue is balance. Should balance be measured based on the initial deployables and carrier abilities, or the potential number of deployables and the carrier abilities. If it is the latter, then both carriers are at an extreme disadvantage. The Kar'fi's fighters are either destroyed by the opponent, or they destroy themselves on suicide runs. On a one on one engagement, the chance of winning should be 50/50 when player skill is not considered. If the carrier is balanced only on what it can get out in the first wave, then it is overpowered, if it gets everything out. If it is balanced on the potential deployables, then it is underpowered in the initial engagement. This means the carrier either has an unfair advantage or an unfair disadvantage based on which point you are measuring balance. This makes it very difficult to balance a carrier. I am in favor of letting the carrier get all waves out without a combat lock and without being limited to a range of 15k. Then balance the carrier at that point. After the battle is joined it is up to the opponent to strip the fighter cover and remove the power of the carrier. The same thing is done against other ships, when you disable subsystems, reduce power output, or any other debuff. If balance means reducing the number of deployables, then so be it. If it means reducing the carrier weapon slots, so be it. The reverse can also work. If balance requires adding deployables, such as a new launch bay, then that is the direction that they need to go.
Because of the spam issues at present and the past, the idea of more deployables puts a bad taste in many peoples' mouths. Heretic has already suggested reducing the number of waves, thus the number of deployed fighters. The additional launch bay does mitigate and even reverse this effort. I think we should keep the second launch bay, but change the wave numbers. As has been suggested, change the suicide fighters to three in a wave instead of four. Then two waves, gives you a max of 6 instead of 8. This means that two lauch bays would still not exceed 12. I don't think the frigates are as big an issues, even though you can potentialy have four out at once instead of three. They would not be as big a hit on spam.
I also like the idea of the Vo'quv fighters being allowed on the Kar'fi. That way, they only have to contend with the opponent and not themselves.
if you didn't have waves then you could have additional hangars with more options. so what if you can't launch wave after wave of pets, if you can launch a large wave with some control on what they do then you can call back what you don't need and launch what you do need.
However if you give the Karfi the Vo'Quv's fighters then what does the Vo'Quv get. Since if the Karfi has the better pets then all the Vo'Qquv has is just better defenses.
I was going to suggest this, but someone beat me to it. So I'll elaborate a bit. ;-)
The biggest misgiving I have about reducing the number of fighters is that I LIKE the idea of launching a big swarm of fighters (that's the whole purpose of a carrier, right?), as opposed to just launching a few. However, I understand how taxing that is on the system! So why not reduce the number of actual entities being launched, but giving the illusion of having just as many (or hey, even more), by making each entity launched look like a tight GROUP of fighters, instead of just one.
So say we knock each hangar down to 2 waves of 3 entities, but each entity LOOKS like a squadron of (let's say) FOUR fighters, in tight formation. In reality each is a singly, mostly-transparant, entity that has four firing points (which correspond to the four visible parts, each of which look like a fighter). Granted, all four die at the same time, but hey, that's squadron loyalty, right? :-) This gives me the illusion that I'm launching *48* fighters...when really, I'm just launching 12 total entities. Make each entitiy a bit tougher than a single fighter is now, and have it do a bit more damage, to keep the overall DPS roughly what it is now, but visually it looks like we're unleashing a SWARM of fighters, in less time, while in reality we're launching fewer entities to ease the server load.
Thanks!
That and the similar ideas sound good. Launch one game entity as a squadron of fighter or what every. Have that entity 2-4 xtimes tougher then the individual vehicles. And have damage be proportional to the entity's heal. (i.e. 33% Hull == 33% damage output).
We could also really use a dropdown pet list that gives us a health monitor of our deployed ships. Much in the same way we can do with our comrades on team. The mastermind of city of heroes has the same function and its fantastic. Functionally Carriers are very similar.
if you didn't have waves then you could have additional hangars with more options. so what if you can't launch wave after wave of pets, if you can launch a large wave with some control on what they do then you can call back what you don't need and launch what you do need.
However if you give the Karfi the Vo'Quv's fighters then what does the Vo'Quv get. Since if the Karfi has the better pets then all the Vo'Qquv has is just better defenses.
The Vo'quv needs functional Siphon Pods and Healing Pods. I bring these up, because unfortunately when balance is being spoken of, this doesn't get spoken of. However, these pods would really be fantastic to use if they functioned a good bit better than they do now.
Turn rates need to be adjusted for both the Vo and Kar'Fi. The carrier needs to be as nimble as a cruiser, but not necessarily as fast. I am fine with targets walking away from me (that's what my pets are for). I'm not fine with the majority of my science powers being useless because my target is out of the firing arc.
I've mentioned this before as well. I've always thought the Vo'quv should be able to project its deflector abilities foreward and aft, so that it doesn't allow other players to so easily park at your back side. This position is to easy to take, and with FAW / Scatter Volley pets are easily dealt with. I've made this suggestion a long time, but if someone could get sub nuc'd, tyken'd, gravity welled, etc from fore and aft positions they'd be forced to circle the the Vo'quv more. Which is fine since the ship can't turn anyway. Not at the pace of combat. The Vo'quv reminds me of an old animation short I saw titled 'No Neck Joe'. Well, one could at least help No Neck last a little longer by giving him an armor vest and a helmet.
Kiting has been mentioned a lot of times as a reason why player controls need to be instituted. Of course I've always believed this, because I can remember when Fawkes, kil, and I use to take complete advantage of Vo'quv captains in their heyday of 50 ship spam. All we had to do is have one guy go **** off their mob, and shoot off with engines blazing and let one of our guys go in and shoot him to smithereens. They weren't even tough with their big shields and hull, in large part because they can't turn.
Granted there were a few Vo'quv captains who stacked so defensively this became difficult, but there were a number of science based defenses against all their RSP's and such (As well as the ability to triple stack hull resist consoles with no diminishing returns). My point is, even when pet spam was ridiculous there was a way to manage it if you were on the opposing side. Kiting, Gravity Well, Tyken's, Scramble 3, and you've significantly injured a Carrier's functionality.
I realize that this might be a longer term project to create a Pet Hud with Hull strength (and possibly power level icons?) as well as Pet Controls, but this would go a long way toward making Carrier balance viable.
Ok, I did a post a while back before they come out about deployables...
all of them...
Mines, Scorp fighters (which was one of the worse decisions ever), fighters (both types) frigates and BoP's.
*Why say scorp fighters were the worst thing ever? Simple, the Carrier got nerfed due to "too much spam" the very same week, after reducing (assuming 5 carriers in a battle) by 45, then the item that was added put 100+ more deployables back on the battlefield? :rolleyes:
wasn't that smart?
Yeah, lets NOT allow the same mistake twice ok? Nothing wrong with the deployables. Leave them be.
A good amount wrong with the Vo Class itself. It does not really have an identity. With the new reductions in shields, powers and other nerfs, its going to harm both carriers.
I am a carrier pilot that just tossed my hands up and walked away from the class when the scorp fighter came out that anyone could have, after the call to "reduce" the deployables.
Since Season 4 came back out I have picked the carrier back up. Now here we are talking more about reducing? Sure take more away from the carrier only if you take weapon banks away from the other ships.
Now to address the phase shift? while a cool gimmick, that is all it is, a gimmick that will do absolutely nothing to improve the Karfi ability to survive. Why say this? you go into that phase with poor health, 10 seconds later your coming out with prob only 1 chance to heal? 10 seconds of delay, a bandaid on a bleeding artery.
You want to get serious in making it more surviveable? make either
1. its deployables better and more surviveable
2. change its BO layout
other then that your wasting time.
The 3 carrier idea? good idea, but umm no. Lets not introduce something into a already broken system. lets fix what is broken first.
The feds issue with carrier is spam, well Cryptic gave them deployable scorp fighters so they can spam too. Even on the reduction the total spam is still +15 more then before the nerf. *facepalm* take those away or at least out of pvp. and if you dont have the tech, then look at CO, they have the tech, learn and copy.
Well since the fact that cryptic gave everyone that "deployable" no one, and yes no one, has the right to say one word about spam. I remember when those came out, the dern feds launched more fighters then the carriers did in a slew of pvp matches.
Lets work with what we got first, make it work right, Then move forward.
Deployables/weapon slots??
What should the carrier be allowed to deploy? BOP? Fighers? (please lets not mix and match fighter types)
A. the "missle" idea is a good one, I rather like it, so long as the missle is targetable. Introducing something that is not not targetable as a deployable weapon system is starting another unbalanced issue.
B. Mines in bays? sure why not? Why not have bays that can be equipped (only 1 per carrier) that it can dispense mines? Fair enough, why cant it be used in a stategic denial mission?
C. Cluster bombs? These are unguided close range dummy warheads used to defend the carrier from up close enemies (we are talking 1km range) Mine Defense, targetable torpedo defense, etc.
Fun ideas, but *shrug* feasible or not?
The problem is just dealing with the simple surviveability of the carrier itself. that means what is stated above that can give some surviveabilty. The gimmick won't.
It seems to me one of the biggest complaints is "spam"
what if fighters were in squadrons, still individual ships but grouped under one target..sort of like everquest 2's linked encouunter targeting, where you click on mob in the encounter and the others are included in the targeting.
This way tab cyclers could skip through groups of ships.
part of the nature of the carrier is to force mis targeting, but its go a bit too much..so this gives a middleground, where players who spam tab and don't think can be shooting at anything, but smart players need to cycle through half the onscreen targets to get to the host.
I agree completely with this. Feds have caught onto this - all you need to do is have one player lure the BOP off and they follow like zombies. There's no way to direct them in times of crisis!
This is a tactic that I've used for a long time with carriers if I'm having trouble taking them down (Extend Shield + other such high defense spam). Scatter Volley and FAW (we'll see if this works now), as well as Gravity Well, are other good ways to take advantage of the Area-based nature of a Vo'quv.
Speaking of which, the whole debate against spam is irritating. There are a lot of abilities meant specifically to deal with Spam. Why not use those? Just because your ship wasn't built with spam in mind, doesn't mean that someone else's is not. Its kind of like the difference between the way a Controller and a Stalker fight in City of Heroes. They're two totally different animals. The Stalker is a lot like the Bird of prey. Squishy with a few defenses, but mostly about rapid damage from a sudden and advantageous striking point. The Controller is instead about ripping you down slowly, and effecting massive amount of targets simultaneously. This latter would be a bit more like an aggressive Science ship.
Comments
How about Gravity Well and Tyken's Rift instead of PSW. Tyken's Rift even drains power, so can weaken the phase shift itself (of course keeping a Kar'Fi inside it without a tractor will be hard, e.g. only can be done by a team of GW + TR users.)
That makes sense to me.
I think minimum 50 aux power is no drawback - there is no point in running Ablative with power put to other systems then Aux usually, as any offensive and healing potential you would have in Ablative Armor is usually related to Science Powers. But that is why energy drain could actually "hurt", as it weakens your own powers.
...
One thing I notice is:
Does it really require 2 Hangar Bays and 4-6 pets out to compensate the loss of one weapon slot compared to a Cruiser, or 2 hangar bays and 1 weapon slot to compensate the loss of 6 points of turn rate on a Science Vessel?
I definitely thing pets need to get a better effectiveness per pe.
This reads as if the phase-shifted player can still use all his powers and energy weapons. Projectile and energy weapons are not balanced against each other. Just because a ship with ablative armor can still use torpedoes, it does not mean that a phase-shifted ship being able to use energy weapons is balanced.
Aux drain sounds good (if properly implemented, see EPS etc.), but I still think there should be a counter that can be applied when the ability is active (or give it a really long visible cast time so that target aux can be applied in time), just like for RSP and ablative armor. Shockwave or CPB could be that counter.
Fighters gaining target subsystem abilities? Bad idea.
More Karfi frigates: Keep in mind that the aceton field from the frigates can be a real problem for the other team. The damage the frigates do is not that much of an issue, but the damage reduction on enemies from aceton field is.
Launching pets out of combat: This means that you can have the initial engagement of the teams with a full set of pets. When fighting multiple carriers, it often becomes mandatory to suppress their pets because at full strength they can overwhelm the other team. Allowing pets launching out of combat means that the team can start the fight with all pets out and this could have major balance implications.
A bit unrelated: Why don't you form a Cryptic team for the upcoming OPVP tournament? (See the thread in the PVP forums.)
Well, science consoles got nerfed again (plus equipping phase shift takes up a science console in the proposed implementation), so maximum drain isn't going to be too extreme. That 33.3% increase happens over the course of a minute and breaks when you change or lose targeting lock, which diminishes it's usefulness.
By itself I don't think adding sensor analysis would be a horribly unbalanced addition, but there is danger it would put things over the top combined with the other buffs. I'm mainly a fan of adding SA due to the elegance and symmetry I see it creating between the Klingon 'science' ships.
GW as well as Tykens + TB will not work well because the phased player is not targetable. Even then it's a mess gameplay wise. Having to switch between PSW to hard counter Intrepids into GW, CBP or some other skill to hard counter Khar'fis is overly complex and convoluted. PSW should work fine for both. It makes sense that two very similar abilities should be given similar counters.
I'm especially wary of Hilbert's suggestion making CBP a potential counter given that it is a lower level skill than PSW and also has significantly greater range. As a counter, it would ruin balance vs. ablative and make the phase shift too easy to circumvent -- possibly to the point of worthlessness vs. semi-decent teams sporting alternate boffs for the occasion.
Aux drain like the Khar'fi would work too, for sure. 50 was a number that I plucked out of thin air merely for the sake of example. My thought was that both skills could have the same counter (aux draining tactics), but somewhat different approaches in regards to how the counter works. In essence I wanted to remove the convolution of differing counters for similar abilities with an eye for keeping gameplay varied between the factions.
A final thought in regards to phase shift: If 50 aux is enough to last through the full 10 seconds of drain, then higher aux drain is warranted. No competent Khar'fi pilot is going to run aux that low. His aux dependent skills will get weaker towards the end of the duration, but the drain has little effect on the significant function of the skill, which is the invulnerability aspect.
Quick idea:
This has the potential to create more interesting gameplay:
The end result is an ability that is more alive and dynamic, with more 'play' area. There is a diverse set of possibilities based on the actions of the caster and his opponent.
Well, not as high as 20/s as regen has to be taken into account, but it does seem like drain should go up. Look at my example just above your post.
If it were asteroids on the other hand.....
Can it fly through asteroids????
Or maybe the cracked planet? that would be cool :cool:
And get stuck in it when the timer runs out
Since let us say the Kar'Fi gets buffed what is the real difference between the 2 carriers, 1 has more weapons and a better pet the frigate, the other more survivability but more variety in pets, but both would have 2 hangars.
I know the playstyle will be different but if some of the supposed changes go through how will people decide which ship to fly.
What are the real benefits for flying either.
allow us the option of replacing our hanger bays with weapons.
( I'd love a hanger bay full of missiles i could volley off at those pesky Feds.)
Maybe the new console could be a Hanger console instead of A science console? Then we'd have to make a choice between more pets and survivability..?
I would like the ability for Carriers to launch something other than pets. Some kind of special torpedo launcher or a disruptor javelin.
I'm not replacing a 2nd sci console with a panic button. I'd get more use from RSP I think, as it would leave me in better shape when the power is finished, than the phase shift console will. It seems to me that if you use Phase shift as it is being considered, after 10 seconds you're worse off, as you have less aux power to heal yourself, & you cannot be healed from teammates while you use it. No thanks. :eek:
The only use i could see for the console would be phasing through terrain features to escape a roflstomping. Allowing me to equip it in a hanger means i might get some use out of it.
I can haz AP Lance please:D
You're right that there is and has always been a great deal of......talk about the carriers, and while I do think that the new phase console is cool and a nice 10 second invulnerability, I think that it's only going to add to the QQ side of things
So, what to do then? Assuming that the Phase console goes in with it's current form, a well piloted Kar'fi is still a vicious machine (just potentially meaner), and the Vo'Quv is an unstoppable monster (and it has nothing to do with FAW); and spam will still be an issue.
So here is what I propose: Convert our current 2 carriers into a functional 3-carrier system, each with a specific role in mind and hangar bay options that are unique to each carrier (and requires no changes to the fighter interface). The detailed changes to the carriers and the new carrier are as follows in the following order:
1. Kar'fi-class Assault Carrier
2. qa'HoS-class Strike Carrier (translation: Relentless-Class)
3. Vo'Quv-class Fleet Carrier
Kar'Fi-Class Assault Carrier
-As the changes to the carriers go, the Kar'fi is the least changed (hence why I start with it). The ship would take on the role of a front-line fire support craft with heavy on-board armament along with strong deployable escort craft.
[list=0]Set-up:[list=0]
[*]BO Layout: Transfer the Ensign Science to Ensign Eng.; the rest unchanged
[*]Hangar specifics:[list=0]
[*]2 bays: S'kul fighters and Fer'jai frigates; 15 km launch range[list=0]
[*]Fighters: 3x3 (3 waves of 3 fighters each)
[*]Frigates: 2x1[/list][/list]
[*]Weapon Layout: Unchanged
[*]Console Layout: Unchanged
[*]Maneuverability: Unchanged
[*]Hull and Shield Strength: 35,000; 125%
[*]Weapon Restrictions: Unable to mount a mine launcher (does not apply to frigates; able to use all other weapons)
[*]Specials: Phase shift console and innate subsystem targeting[/list][/list]
qa'HoS-Class Strike Carrier
-The new strike carrier, designed to go behind enemy lines in conjunction with other craft (or alone) and deliver strong and mobile firepower against the target. The qa'HoS is a mid-sized craft (between a raptor and a battlecruiser) which while giving it significantly better maneuverability than it's counterparts, does result in the ship being able to carry fewer on-board weapon systems to accommodate the fighter bays and support systems, however the fighters deployed from the qa'HoS make up the difference in firepower.
[list=0]Set-up:[list=0]
[*]BO Layout*: [list=0]
[*]Tactical: Cmdr; Lt.
[*]Engineering: Lt.; Ensign
[*]Science: Lt. Cmdr[/list]
[*]Hangar Specifics: [list=0]
[*]2 Bays: To'Duj Mobile Squadron**, Siphon Pods; 15km launch range[list=0]
[*]Fighters: 1x4
[*]Pods: 2x2[/list][/list]
[*]Weapon Layout: [list=0]
[*]3 Fore, 2 Aft[/list]
[*]Console Layout: [list=0]
[*]Tactical: 4
[*]Eng: 2
[*]Sci: 3[/list]
[*]Maneuverability: 12
[*]Hull and Shield Strength: 30,000; 100%
[*]Weapon Restrictions: Unable to mount mine launchers (able to use all other weapons)
[*]Specials: Standard Cloaking Device
[/list][/list]
Vo'Quv-Class Fleet Carrier
-The Vo'Quv is a massive ship, easily one of the largest one of the two factions, and it's immense size allows it to carry a significant number of deployable craft to attack enemy forces or support friendly ones. Additionally the vessel carries advanced sensor and communications equipment that allows the vessel to operate at a distance and direct the efforts of the fleet with near impunity.
[list=0]Set-up:[list=0]
[*]BO Layout: Reduce the Lt. Cmdr Eng to a Lt.; rest unchanged
[*]Weapon Layout: 2 Fore, 2 Aft
[*]Hangar Specifics: [list=0]
[*]4 Bays: To'Duj Fighters, Birds-of-Prey, Shield Repair Shuttles, Hazard Shuttles*** (35km launch range)[list=0]
[*]Fighters: 2x4
[*]BoP: 2x1
[*]SRS: 2x3 (limit of 2 hangars)
[*]HS: 2x3 (limit of 2 hangars)[/list][/list]
[*]Console Layout: Unchanged
[*]Maneuverability: 3
[*]Hull and Shield Strength: 32,000; 100%
[*]Weapon Restrictions: None
[*]Specials: Rapid Deployment****, Advanced Long-Range Sensor Grid (Passive 40km sensor range)
[*]Penalty: Evasive Maneuvers speed bonus reduced by 1/2
[/list][/list]
*: Similar to the MVAM Prometheus layout
**: The name is simply a placeholder, they would be fighters along those same lines, just a single wave instead of 2
***: Hazard Shuttles are shuttles that carry Hazard Emitters (go figure), and follow their target assisting as possible
****: A Vo'Quv unique ability that boosts the speed of their deployables to 85 for 5 seconds in order to cover large areas quickly to reach a target (180 second cooldown)
Fed-Vo'Quv counter
-Obviously the reworked Vo'Quv would pose a serious problem to the Federation teams as they are, therefore grant all Federation Science Ships the innate ability to conduct a sensor sweep that reveals all uncloaked ships/units within 35km of the sweeping ship (120 second cooldown). That way, the Federation players would have a chance to find a launching Vo'Quv and stop it or at least occupy it.
Spam:
-Yes I'm about to talk about clutter, the irony is not lost on me given that I was just advocating for another carrier....
That's a double-edged sword, making them more effective will run the problem of the instagibs that were present during the testing of the redone carrier systems 8 months ago, but at the same time if you reduce their numbers then you run the risk of making it too easy to cripple the output of a carrier (and force players to the heavier alternatives for the survivability).
The solution to the technical and performance problems isn't in the carriers themselves, it's in the other ships that are generating significant clutter on their own, like cruisers running two mine launchers, the special abilities of the varanus and the marauder, the scorpion fighters, etc.; if those are changed then the carriers can go on with life. So I suggest:
-Mines: Increase all the launcher cooldowns significantly but increase their yields and explosive radius; that way there will be less on the field but they will do more damage (so as not to be useless) and makes it so that dispersal patterns would be necessary to get any significant number of them out. Basically people wouldn't have them on auto anymore and would be forced to use them sparingly and tactically.
-Marauder Cruiser*: Reduce the fighter spawns to 1/3 what they are now
-Varanus*: Half the spawns
-Scorpion Fighters: Make it so you cannot get the item twice (sorry I'm tired and I don't remember if you can get it more than once)
-Breen Transphasic Torp: Reduce the spawned mines by half
*: The alternative is to remove their special abilities altogether (if you want fighters then fly a carrier) and give them an extra console slot to bring them up to par with their fed counterparts as the trade-off.
Additional BO fighter abilities:
-More of a question for you here Heretic: Is there room or any consideration for new Bridge Officer power(s) that effect the performance of Fighters? Additionally, how difficult would it be to implement them if it was deemed possible.
Anyway, that's all I can think of at the moment, hope yall enjoyed the read
I'm not convinced it will for 2 reasons:
1) Fewer pets total. While yes, they'll be supposedly equal in power to what we have now, just fewer ships in the air... this also means that shooting one down is significantly more meaningful as it's a greater % of the overall firepower pie. So I think before we can say this will be a problem we really need to see how survivable the altered fighters are.
2) While this can be an issue in games with multiple carriers, in a game with a single carrier that carrier can be shut down extremely easily at present.* There are some workarounds, like spawning fighters at 15km out while they're dueling someone else.
The problem is... if you're 15km out you aren't using any of your BO powers, meaning your ally who's taking the beating for you isn't being healed, and you aren't doing any extra damage either. At that point you're merely a fighter dispensary, and while fighters are good... they usually aren't good enough to do the job by themselves.
And of course that assumes no one is killing them as the come into range as well.
*I know, I've been that carrier fairly often. It's pretty obnoxious never getting more than 6 fighters out at a time because they're all slagged shortly after take off; and those 6 of course don't get to do much for precisely that reason.
My suggestions in green
I agree completely with this. Feds have caught onto this - all you need to do is have one player lure the BOP off and they follow like zombies. There's no way to direct them in times of crisis!
The only "critical" point might become if it becomes economical to use single target DPS buffs against pets as well, because that would mean you don't need to adapt at all to the presence of carriers.
Because of the spam issues at present and the past, the idea of more deployables puts a bad taste in many peoples' mouths. Heretic has already suggested reducing the number of waves, thus the number of deployed fighters. The additional launch bay does mitigate and even reverse this effort. I think we should keep the second launch bay, but change the wave numbers. As has been suggested, change the suicide fighters to three in a wave instead of four. Then two waves, gives you a max of 6 instead of 8. This means that two lauch bays would still not exceed 12. I don't think the frigates are as big an issues, even though you can potentialy have four out at once instead of three. They would not be as big a hit on spam.
I also like the idea of the Vo'quv fighters being allowed on the Kar'fi. That way, they only have to contend with the opponent and not themselves.
However if you give the Karfi the Vo'Quv's fighters then what does the Vo'Quv get. Since if the Karfi has the better pets then all the Vo'Qquv has is just better defenses.
That and the similar ideas sound good. Launch one game entity as a squadron of fighter or what every. Have that entity 2-4 xtimes tougher then the individual vehicles. And have damage be proportional to the entity's heal. (i.e. 33% Hull == 33% damage output).
The Vo'quv needs functional Siphon Pods and Healing Pods. I bring these up, because unfortunately when balance is being spoken of, this doesn't get spoken of. However, these pods would really be fantastic to use if they functioned a good bit better than they do now.
I've mentioned this before as well. I've always thought the Vo'quv should be able to project its deflector abilities foreward and aft, so that it doesn't allow other players to so easily park at your back side. This position is to easy to take, and with FAW / Scatter Volley pets are easily dealt with. I've made this suggestion a long time, but if someone could get sub nuc'd, tyken'd, gravity welled, etc from fore and aft positions they'd be forced to circle the the Vo'quv more. Which is fine since the ship can't turn anyway. Not at the pace of combat. The Vo'quv reminds me of an old animation short I saw titled 'No Neck Joe'. Well, one could at least help No Neck last a little longer by giving him an armor vest and a helmet.
Granted there were a few Vo'quv captains who stacked so defensively this became difficult, but there were a number of science based defenses against all their RSP's and such (As well as the ability to triple stack hull resist consoles with no diminishing returns). My point is, even when pet spam was ridiculous there was a way to manage it if you were on the opposing side. Kiting, Gravity Well, Tyken's, Scramble 3, and you've significantly injured a Carrier's functionality.
I realize that this might be a longer term project to create a Pet Hud with Hull strength (and possibly power level icons?) as well as Pet Controls, but this would go a long way toward making Carrier balance viable.
all of them...
Mines, Scorp fighters (which was one of the worse decisions ever), fighters (both types) frigates and BoP's.
*Why say scorp fighters were the worst thing ever? Simple, the Carrier got nerfed due to "too much spam" the very same week, after reducing (assuming 5 carriers in a battle) by 45, then the item that was added put 100+ more deployables back on the battlefield? :rolleyes:
wasn't that smart?
Yeah, lets NOT allow the same mistake twice ok? Nothing wrong with the deployables. Leave them be.
A good amount wrong with the Vo Class itself. It does not really have an identity. With the new reductions in shields, powers and other nerfs, its going to harm both carriers.
I am a carrier pilot that just tossed my hands up and walked away from the class when the scorp fighter came out that anyone could have, after the call to "reduce" the deployables.
Since Season 4 came back out I have picked the carrier back up. Now here we are talking more about reducing? Sure take more away from the carrier only if you take weapon banks away from the other ships.
Now to address the phase shift? while a cool gimmick, that is all it is, a gimmick that will do absolutely nothing to improve the Karfi ability to survive. Why say this? you go into that phase with poor health, 10 seconds later your coming out with prob only 1 chance to heal? 10 seconds of delay, a bandaid on a bleeding artery.
You want to get serious in making it more surviveable? make either
1. its deployables better and more surviveable
2. change its BO layout
other then that your wasting time.
The 3 carrier idea? good idea, but umm no. Lets not introduce something into a already broken system. lets fix what is broken first.
The feds issue with carrier is spam, well Cryptic gave them deployable scorp fighters so they can spam too. Even on the reduction the total spam is still +15 more then before the nerf. *facepalm* take those away or at least out of pvp. and if you dont have the tech, then look at CO, they have the tech, learn and copy.
Well since the fact that cryptic gave everyone that "deployable" no one, and yes no one, has the right to say one word about spam. I remember when those came out, the dern feds launched more fighters then the carriers did in a slew of pvp matches.
Lets work with what we got first, make it work right, Then move forward.
Deployables/weapon slots??
What should the carrier be allowed to deploy? BOP? Fighers? (please lets not mix and match fighter types)
A. the "missle" idea is a good one, I rather like it, so long as the missle is targetable. Introducing something that is not not targetable as a deployable weapon system is starting another unbalanced issue.
B. Mines in bays? sure why not? Why not have bays that can be equipped (only 1 per carrier) that it can dispense mines? Fair enough, why cant it be used in a stategic denial mission?
C. Cluster bombs? These are unguided close range dummy warheads used to defend the carrier from up close enemies (we are talking 1km range) Mine Defense, targetable torpedo defense, etc.
Fun ideas, but *shrug* feasible or not?
The problem is just dealing with the simple surviveability of the carrier itself. that means what is stated above that can give some surviveabilty. The gimmick won't.
what if fighters were in squadrons, still individual ships but grouped under one target..sort of like everquest 2's linked encouunter targeting, where you click on mob in the encounter and the others are included in the targeting.
This way tab cyclers could skip through groups of ships.
part of the nature of the carrier is to force mis targeting, but its go a bit too much..so this gives a middleground, where players who spam tab and don't think can be shooting at anything, but smart players need to cycle through half the onscreen targets to get to the host.
How about Siphon Podes and Repair Drones that are worth the trouble? :P
This is a tactic that I've used for a long time with carriers if I'm having trouble taking them down (Extend Shield + other such high defense spam). Scatter Volley and FAW (we'll see if this works now), as well as Gravity Well, are other good ways to take advantage of the Area-based nature of a Vo'quv.
Speaking of which, the whole debate against spam is irritating. There are a lot of abilities meant specifically to deal with Spam. Why not use those? Just because your ship wasn't built with spam in mind, doesn't mean that someone else's is not. Its kind of like the difference between the way a Controller and a Stalker fight in City of Heroes. They're two totally different animals. The Stalker is a lot like the Bird of prey. Squishy with a few defenses, but mostly about rapid damage from a sudden and advantageous striking point. The Controller is instead about ripping you down slowly, and effecting massive amount of targets simultaneously. This latter would be a bit more like an aggressive Science ship.