How about Siphon Podes and Repair Drones that are worth the trouble? :P
That, too, but I want something non-spammy. Though the Siphon Pods could theoretically not be pets and just a visual effect for an energy drain type attack.
I will probably be throwing out a few more threads like this over the next month or so as we go through and tweak a bunch of ship issues. Some of things we are working on we aren't ready to talk about yet, but we can certainly start to talk about some of the balance issues.
VERY IMPORTANT: If you don't see us ask specifically about something, please do not assume that we don't care about it or aren't aware of it. There are a number of restrictions to what we can and can't do - the usual suspects like schedule and technical issues (which, for example, is holding up the irritating-as-hell HoT issue with the Enhanced Battle Cloak), but others have to do with other things happening that we can't talk about.
Also, and almost as important, everybody has different opinions on what direction they want to see the game or specific ships go in, and there's no way we can make everyone happy. What we can do is listen to the feedback and balance that with what we can do and what other longer term plans are working under the hood.
With all of that out of the way, let's get on to some things we're thinking about regarding carriers in general and the Kar'fi in particular.
Carriers
Some people love them, some people hate them. Some people think they are reasonable in the IP, some don't. For the forseeable future we do see a role for them to play in the KDF. Similarly, we do not currently have any plans to give carriers to the Federation.
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.
Vo'quv
There seems to be a split in opinion as to - after FAW is dealt a swift slap in the face, of course - whether the Vo'quv is fine or not. It is an incredibly beefy ship with a really nice bridge officer seating, and this makes it tough to take down without coordination or tactics. That being said, right now we're leaning towards leaving it alone for the moment, at least until we see the effect the FAW fix and the above-mentioned fighter thinning-out have.
Lower-Tier Carriers
This is currently under consideration.
Opinions and feedback are welcome, but please keep it productive.
Heretic, from my viewpoint the reason why Klingon Carriers are so troublesome in PvP is due to the fact they have the leathal aspects of all 3 classes (Tactical, Engineer, and Science).
Right now, the combination of Lt Commander or Commander Engineering and Science BO slots makes it a very powerful tanking abiilty that makes it very difficult to damage an opponent. Hazzard Emitters at full Aux has proved even on Escorts to give them a powerful tanking ability. And has led to cries in the PvP circle of being too good. And the Carriers greatly benefits from this far more than Federation Science Ships.
Now depending on what's to come with Hazzard Emitters as a heal, plays a great deal with the changes to the Carriers.
Secondly, is the Lt Commander Tactical abilities. Which in a Carrier can carry a great arsenal of leathal abilities such as BO3, HY3, FAW3, or Disable 3. Currently, the favored ability is FAW3, even after the recent changes after Season 4 went live and a Carrier in a broadside coupled with Frigate spawn has very strong damage potential.
And that leaves the Carrier Spawns themselves. While the fighters aren't really strong offensively, it does create a much needed distraction to keep players from using various AoE abilities. But the real troublesome spawns is the Frigates. Like I mentioned above they have very strong damage potential, and the damage is far signficant than Photonic Fleet and Fleet Support being used at the same time.
BoPs or the Fel'kiri Frigates have HPs around 30k, that of a Tier 4 battlecruiser or stronger than a Frigate NPC at Tier 5. BoPs can be spawned in 2 or 3 groups and that damage potential alone is significant, the cannons an aid in stripping an opponent's shields and the torpedoes can cause significant kinetic damage on a unshielded opponent. The Kar'fi's frigate can drop Tricobalt Mines, which can either stun an opponent or even destroy an already immobilized player.
All in all, these combinations is what makes the Vo'Quv a powerful opponent. I feel that even if the NPC spawn ability is disabled, the carrier's basic BO and Weapon layouts are more than sufficient to survive.
And in PvP matches, you getting 2 or more carriers, can be trouble. I never seen 4 or 5 carriers in a match before, but I been in plenty of encounters with 3 and that is a powerful deterent, where they can support one another and flood the skies with NPCs.
Now what to nerf or not is up to you. Personally, I would like to see Frigate spawns be reduced to an appropriate number between 10000 to 15000 hps. That or Frigate Spawn times is longer in duration, for right now a player can effectively get 2 or 3 frigate groups launched, and if a player is 1 on 1, ends up being more like 3 v 1.
Since like I mentioned above that multiple carriers are troublesome, perhaps you could consider PvP matches having a hard number of NPCs allowed to spawn. Or players have a limited ammount of spawns (which goes the same with mines) in a PvP match. For instance a Carrier would be limited to 4 BoP groups or 10 sets of fighters. That way they can't spam at will and have to think more strategically.
So you're saying if I hop in a carrier, and start to pvp you want me to be limited in what I can dish out because some other random guy just happens to also be in a carrier? Maybe people shouldn't venture out alone and, you know, team up to take down big targets?
They are talking about having less npcs but making them a little stronger to make up for the numbers. And they've never separated pve stuff and pvp stuff, I doubt they'll start now.
So you're saying if I hop in a carrier, and start to pvp you want me to be limited in what I can dish out because some other random guy just happens to also be in a carrier? Maybe people shouldn't venture out alone and, you know, team up to take down big targets?
Sound like you want Carriers to be superior to anyone and cannot be taken down in 1 on 1s. I disagree, a Carrier shouldn't be required to have multiple players to take it down.
They are talking about having less npcs but making them a little stronger to make up for the numbers. And they've never separated pve stuff and pvp stuff, I doubt they'll start now.
As for less NPCs by buffing them, I wouldn't mind if it was the fighters. But I highly disagree in buffing those Frigates. As I said above, I think this Frigates need less HPs, because in mass those Frigates are too effective. If anyone doubt me, please feel free to go against a capable Vo'Quv captain and have him have nothing but BoPs and spawn 2 or 3 groups worth, lets see how long until things start going his way.
As for seperating PvP and PvE, given right now with S4 Ground PVP, looks like they got to start considering it because there is no longer any chance to properly balance PvP and PvE given the mechanics. Unless someone gets the short end of the stick.
No, I don't want them to be super powerful or the ship every KDF officer flies. What I was trying to get across is I do not want to be penalized because of the ship I choose to fly. Should they make it so only 1 escort in a match can carry a BO3? to cut down on all that damage they can do, or the amount of photonic fleets, or maybe the number of heals a cruiser can use? Doesnt that all sound kind of ridiculous
I ask, what do you think of the Kar fi? Since it doesn't have the lethal aspects of all 3 classes.
Back on topic, I cant wait to try these changes out, whenever they come. Looking forward to the Kar fi.
No, I don't want them to be super powerful or the ship every KDF officer flies. What I was trying to get across is I do not want to be penalized because of the ship I choose to fly. Should they make it so only 1 escort in a match can carry a BO3? to cut down on all that damage they can do, or the amount of photonic fleets, or maybe the number of heals a cruiser can use? Doesnt that all sound kind of ridiculous
I ask, what do you think of the Kar fi? Since it doesn't have the lethal aspects of all 3 classes.
Back on topic, I cant wait to try these changes out, whenever they come. Looking forward to the Kar fi.
Indeed, nobody should be penalized. But the Vo'Quv even without it's NPCs is very capable of going 1 on 1 with another ship.
As for the Kar'fi, I think it could use a bit more defense to it. But it's not as formidable as the Vo'Quv. Dunno, perhaps exchange the LT Tactical for another LT Engineering slot.
To clarify, I am suggesting that blind focus fire should not be the optimal tactic in every situation a team may face.
Solution: diminishing returns. Add a small debuff that kicks in when more than two [player] ships target another, rising with the number of ships targeting.
What's everyone's opinion on bringing more variety via rarity, mk etc. to hanger bay items?
Setting the rant against the concept of fighters in star trek in general that i actually am obligated to make, i wil lthis about fighters and their suvivability:
First of all: when they get hit, they should die exceedingly fast. That is simply a fact of its size. my particle beam has roughly a beam diameter of about hald the bloody fighters whole size.
if the beam hits, the fighter is toast.
No way to magic that away without opening the can of worms. (aka: if the fighters has special shields that reinforce it, why don't bigger ships get those things? etc...)
So, fighters need a passive ability to ecm, aka lower incoming shots accuracy. That is the ONLY plausible way that fits both the ip and common sense.
increasing a little fighters survivability with ecm is also more plausible than trying the same thing with a 600+ meter ship (since someone will ask why bigger ships wouldn't get this..). ECM does have its limits after all.
As far as fighters firepower goes: they should all have dual cannons and permanent rapid fire.
About the karfi: make it turn quicker and see where it goes.
The fighter's size is small, true. How do a Bird of Prey launched from a hangar differ conceptually from the one captained by other players though? Talking purely theme here. And if everything is going to be 100% accurate, why isn't the Vo'quv significantly larger than the Neghvar, and the Neghvar significantly larger than the Raptor, and so on. The same can be said on the Federation side. A lot of this is for playability, and part of it is because the IP itself hasn't been 100% accurate with its portrayals. Take the star wars style X-wing Strafing run that the Defiant did vs. the Negh'var in one episode of DS9 vs another episode where there sizes weren't quite so different. Ultimately the devs want to just make some game balance here.
Now for the complaints about Mines. What a joke. Mines are a passive way to set up a defensive position. They're relatively weak. I find it laughable the way people talk about Mines like they're so deadly. If they bother you so much, slot a scatter volley in there. Its not a bad skill, and can give you some of that aoe protection you obviously need. In fact, the whole complaint about Spam in general is kind of weak. Why don't they just give us a button which helps us directly acquire the Enemy Ship target, so we don't have to do that ourselves? If anything, I've always felt that Mines didn't spam enough. The only area of the game I know of where mines actually get interesting is in Halting the Gorn advance. Everywhere else they are a big joke. If you can't get past a few mines your team either has the wrong skills, or you might consider putting shields on your ship. I've seen people on both sides complain about this, and I just don't get it. Toughen up a little. Let the big tugboats have their strategy, and you have yours. There are counters to most things out there.
Yes it is true that the Vo'quv can in fact have the Beam Overload 3 and so forth, but you are forgetting something. The Ship is a Jack of all Trades and master of none. Its turn rate is by far the worst in the game, even a Star Cruiser can run donuts around a Vo'quv. This means that isolating a shield facing is rather easy, which in turn means their defensiveness is greatly diminished. Secondly because their turn rate is so bad, they can in fact maintain speed to keep their evasion value up, with one HUGE flaw. In order to maintain that defense value they are flying straight and directly away from their comrades. Isolate and destroy. Thirdly, because of their heavy science and engineering focus they are likely to need a strong auxiliary, which draws power away from either Shields, Engines or Weapons power. This in turn directly effects their toughness (Shields), their Engines (Defense), or Damage output (Weapons power). Assuming the Vo'quv is using 6 beams, he likely has an EPS Regulator meaning he has only 2 more slots to put in a Hull protector + Field Emitter. His shields aren't all that good either.
Don't get me wrong, the Vo'quv is a good ship, but I can't believe someone would make wild claims about it being all powerful. Its design is very jack of all trades. The Tier 4 slot of science also tends to be primarily very defensive, or extremely difficult to line up (Unless your enemy is foolish). I don't see many people feeling overly threatened by Tractor beam repulsors on a Vo'quv. Feedback pulse is a nice touch, but again can be dealt with. If you don't like the fact that a Vo'quv can tie up your time, then you miss the point. If you allow the Vo'quv to beat you up, then you deserve to take the beating, but don't play his game!
Now if the team with the Vo'quv is smart, and knows how to get everyone playing to their strengths, good on them they should win. I'm tired of hearing about nerfs to abilities just because people can't recognize that they have to play to their strengths and use a strategy.
Is the massive Vo'quv team a good strategy? It can be. And really, you SHOULD be afraid of a Fleet of those big lumbering hulks floating around. They're meant to conquer worlds. Singly they're not so great, but in an organized team of -anything- they get a lot better.
To answer the question why I think the Vo'quv has a Lt. Commander Tactical slot. Firstly, look at their Console arrangement (3/4/2). Secondly, Look at their turn rate. They need SOMETHING to deal with/help that, or make up for it. There are a few legitimate ways of doing this. Tactical team helps with their shields and dealing with some debuffs (that they WILL take, such as focus fire). The Lt. Comm Slot allows them to either go more aggressive, or to maneuver with greater efficacy, or throw up some defense... for short bursts.
Indeed, nobody should be penalized. But the Vo'Quv even without it's NPCs is very capable of going 1 on 1 with another ship.
As for the Kar'fi, I think it could use a bit more defense to it. But it's not as formidable as the Vo'Quv. Dunno, perhaps exchange the LT Tactical for another LT Engineering slot.
You have got to be joking. If you're not going to use the pets, go play a Negh'var. Its tougher, more maneuverable (Defense), and packs way more wallop. Hell, the thing can cloak as well. Wait there's more, there's another ship that's better. Fly the Refit Cruiser, its even more maneuverable. Its kind of like a really tanky raptor in fact. Oh, and you get more weapons on your ship! You get more tactical slots so those weapons count for more!
Maybe this statement was made as hyperbole but its a bit silly.
How about giving small craft like fighters an innate stealth bonus,so they can't be targeted at ranges of more than 7.5 km? Maybe combined with a high defense bonus?
How about a hangar bay that launches a Klingon/Lethean Boarding Party that can take over a ship,a bit like Borg assimilation does with player characters and Bridge Officers?
How about hanger bays that allow for player controlled fighters to be launched? (these are not pets,but players flying a fighter)
How about giving carriers other innate skills,like Emergency Power to Engines/Shields/Weapons/Aux or the Engineering/Science/Tactical Teams?
How about giving small craft like fighters an innate stealth bonus,so they can't be targeted at ranges of more than 7.5 km? Maybe combined with a high defense bonus?
How about hanger bays that allow for player controlled fighters to be launched? (these are not pets,but players flying a fighter)
Now for the complaints about Mines. What a joke. Mines are a passive way to set up a defensive position. They're relatively weak. I find it laughable the way people talk about Mines like they're so deadly.
They aren't deadly, and no one is claiming that. What they are is - something that can lead to lagging, and that causes targeting confusion (and not just because a player is not able to distinguish mines and ships, it's also because the UI often leads to "mis-clicks" on the wrong target.)
That's what all the complaints about mine and pet spam are about. It doesn't really matter if their desructive and defensive powers is accurate or not - they hit all the weaknesses of this game's UI and cause needless frustration.
You have got to be joking. If you're not going to use the pets, go play a Negh'var. Its tougher, more maneuverable (Defense), and packs way more wallop. Hell, the thing can cloak as well. Wait there's more, there's another ship that's better. Fly the Refit Cruiser, its even more maneuverable. Its kind of like a really tanky raptor in fact. Oh, and you get more weapons on your ship! You get more tactical slots so those weapons count for more!
Maybe this statement was made as hyperbole but its a bit silly.
How about you go back adn re-read what I said. I didn't say get rid of NPCs, I said that Vo'Quvs are so strong that in 1 on 1 fights that they don't need NPCs. Having NPCs gives them a greater advantage.
They aren't deadly, and no one is claiming that. What they are is - something that can lead to lagging, and that causes targeting confusion (and not just because a player is not able to distinguish mines and ships, it's also because the UI often leads to "mis-clicks" on the wrong target.)
That's what all the complaints about mine and pet spam are about. It doesn't really matter if their desructive and defensive powers is accurate or not - they hit all the weaknesses of this game's UI and cause needless frustration.
Mines should be reinvisioned in STO. More Bank and harder to shoot at, but less respawn time.
For instance in C&H, they make great barrierss around the Cap points.
1. Current internal iteration of the Kar'fi Phase Shift Aux drain is at -12/sec from where it was at -10/sec. This puts the full duration Aux requirement at around 75 (previous full duration Aux requirement was about 50.)
2. After some discussion with Geko about some of the special ability console inconsistencies, we're leaning towards starting to shift over special abilities to universal consoles - this would include the Kar'fi Phase Shift console and, where and as feasible, existing and new ships' special abilities as well.
3. Considering making some deployables to be essentially cloaked until some point barrier. This could theoretically include fighters, support platforms, syphon drones, etc. Almost certainly not the deployable frigates and BoP. Maybe mines. The purpose of this would be both to increase the surviveability of deployables and also to reduce spam-on-screen. This could be instead of or in addition to a straight Defense buff to small deployables.
4. Looking into seeing if we can put together some special carrier AI commands including Escort (follow designated friend, attack what attacks friend) and Intercept (attacks, in priority order, torpedoes, mines, fighters.) Unfortunately, at least in any initial iteration, this probably wouldn't be on a hanger-by-hanger basis. Where this would really shine is with different types of fighters having a chance to proc certain subsystem offline results (not shields, but depending on the fighter type, Weapons, Engines or Auxiliary). So, you could set your deployables that can sometimes take out Weapons, for example, to Escort your healer.
I am particularly interested in your thoughts on point #3 in regards to which deployables you think would (in your view) be good for this kind of mechanic, and also at what range.
EDIT: Modified #3 to broaden possible distance values for this possibility.
1. Current internal iteration of the Kar'fi Phase Shift Aux drain is at -12/sec from where it was at -10/sec. This puts the full duration Aux requirement at around 75 (previous full duration Aux requirement was about 50.)
2. After some discussion with Geko about some of the special ability console inconsistencies, we're leaning towards starting to shift over special abilities to universal consoles - this would include the Kar'fi Phase Shift console and, where and as feasible, existing and new ships' special abilities as well.
3. Considering making some deployables to be essentially cloaked until some point shy of the current perception barrier. This could theoretically include fighters, support platforms, syphon drones, etc. Almost certainly not the deployable frigates and BoP. Maybe mines. The purpose of this would be both to increase the surviveability of deployables and also to reduce spam-on-screen. This could be instead of or in addition to a straight Defense buff to small deployables.
4. Looking into seeing if we can put together some special carrier AI commands including Escort (follow designated friend, attack what attacks friend) and Intercept (attacks, in priority order, torpedoes, mines, fighters.) Unfortunately, at least in any initial iteration, this probably wouldn't be on a hanger-by-hanger basis.
I am particularly interested in your thoughts on point #3 in regards to which deployables you think would (in your view) be good for this kind of mechanic, and also at what range.
1. okay.
2. Yes, please. More choices are always good.
3. How about cloaked repair drones ? The would only decloak to heal. That way you would get at least a little healing before your enemy can blow them up.
1. Current internal iteration of the Kar'fi Phase Shift Aux drain is at -12/sec from where it was at -10/sec. This puts the full duration Aux requirement at around 75 (previous full duration Aux requirement was about 50.)
2. After some discussion with Geko about some of the special ability console inconsistencies, we're leaning towards starting to shift over special abilities to universal consoles - this would include the Kar'fi Phase Shift console and, where and as feasible, existing and new ships' special abilities as well.
3. Considering making some deployables to be essentially cloaked until some point shy of the current perception barrier. This could theoretically include fighters, support platforms, syphon drones, etc. Almost certainly not the deployable frigates and BoP. Maybe mines. The purpose of this would be both to increase the surviveability of deployables and also to reduce spam-on-screen. This could be instead of or in addition to a straight Defense buff to small deployables.
4. Looking into seeing if we can put together some special carrier AI commands including Escort (follow designated friend, attack what attacks friend) and Intercept (attacks, in priority order, torpedoes, mines, fighters.) Unfortunately, at least in any initial iteration, this probably wouldn't be on a hanger-by-hanger basis.
I am particularly interested in your thoughts on point #3 in regards to which deployables you think would (in your view) be good for this kind of mechanic, and also at what range.
2) Is this in regards to all special abilities, or just new ones? Ablative Escorts would be terrifying.
3) I don't really think it's worth it, IMO. During 90% of battles, everyone will be within 10KM of you (or within 15KM, max). Having stealthed deployables won't help because you'll be able to see them all at that range. All it will do is put you at a disadvantage when against Carriers, because you won't be able to see what they're fielding up until you're in close. And then the clutter is there anyways.
2) Is this in regards to all special abilities, or just new ones? Ablative Escorts would be terrifying.
3) I don't really think it's worth it, IMO. During 90% of battles, everyone will be within 10KM of you (or within 15KM, max). Having stealthed deployables won't help because you'll be able to see them all at that range. All it will do is put you at a disadvantage when against Carriers, because you won't be able to see what they're fielding up until you're in close. And then the clutter is there anyways.
Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding.
I should clarify, making them universal consoles doesn't mean they would automatically be usable on other ships. That would be on a case-by-case basis.
As much as possible, we would like to make them transferable, but obviously in some cases it either won't work at all (saucer separation, for example) or risks being really problematic balance-wise (ablative, phase shift). Also, while we would like to do this for all abilities, I can't guarantee when we would have time to get to everything, so we'd have to see on this.
As for deployable visibility, I think it depends on the distance. I put it badly initially when I said "at some point close to the perceptibility barrier" - what I meant was, this would not be intended to function like true cloaking. I have edited the earlier post to reflect this.
At, say, 15km, you're right, it just means you have less warning for what is coming at you. At 10km it's probably a modest effect. At 5km, the effect would be more noticeable, and would certainly clear up a chunk of the visual clutter at the very least. It would also make it harder to target deployables on strafing runs or that are on friends who are not right on top of you.
all i ask for as a pve carrier pilot is for pets to stay out on the map when you get out of combat instead of auto-landing or have a longer out and about timer. but this is my thoughts on carriers.
I should clarify, making them universal consoles doesn't mean they would automatically be usable on other ships. That would be on a case-by-case basis.
As much as possible, we would like to make them transferable, but obviously in some cases it either won't work at all (saucer separation, for example) or risks being really problematic balance-wise (ablative, phase shift). Also, while we would like to do this for all abilities, I can't guarantee when we would have time to get to everything, so we'd have to see on this.
As for deployable visibility, I think it depends on the distance. I put it badly initially when I said "at some point close to the perceptibility barrier" - what I meant was, this would not be intended to function like true cloaking. I have edited the earlier post to reflect this.
At, say, 15km, you're right, it just means you have less warning for what is coming at you. At 10km it's probably a modest effect. At 5km, the effect would be more noticeable, and would certainly clear up a chunk of the visual clutter at the very least. It would also make it harder to target deployables on strafing runs or that are on friends who are not right on top of you.
Any update on your current thinking re: Hangar equipment Mk levels, rarity, and perhaps fighters with different weapon loadouts [such as tetryon, polaron etc.]?
1. Current internal iteration of the Kar'fi Phase Shift Aux drain is at -12/sec from where it was at -10/sec. This puts the full duration Aux requirement at around 75 (previous full duration Aux requirement was about 50.)
2. After some discussion with Geko about some of the special ability console inconsistencies, we're leaning towards starting to shift over special abilities to universal consoles - this would include the Kar'fi Phase Shift console and, where and as feasible, existing and new ships' special abilities as well.
3. Considering making some deployables to be essentially cloaked until some point barrier. This could theoretically include fighters, support platforms, syphon drones, etc. Almost certainly not the deployable frigates and BoP. Maybe mines. The purpose of this would be both to increase the surviveability of deployables and also to reduce spam-on-screen. This could be instead of or in addition to a straight Defense buff to small deployables.
4. Looking into seeing if we can put together some special carrier AI commands including Escort (follow designated friend, attack what attacks friend) and Intercept (attacks, in priority order, torpedoes, mines, fighters.) Unfortunately, at least in any initial iteration, this probably wouldn't be on a hanger-by-hanger basis. Where this would really shine is with different types of fighters having a chance to proc certain subsystem offline results (not shields, but depending on the fighter type, Weapons, Engines or Auxiliary). So, you could set your deployables that can sometimes take out Weapons, for example, to Escort your healer.
1. That's an improvement, although I feel my previous example might be able to create more interesting gameplay:
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.
2. Sweet, consistency is always a good thing. I'm glad that you guys decided not to create more inconsistency by having different power consoles behave differently.
3. Hmmm, not sure how I feel about the idea. I get the feeling that by trying to make spam less annoying you run the risk of buffing it and making it too survivable. Invisibility also runs the risk of being annoying in it's own way (certainly didn't make cloaked tractor beam mines any less aggravating). My suggestion would be to improve targeting before employing a band-aid solution. One of the following could work:
Toggle button that disables/enables targeting of small items. (perhaps exempting high priority items, eg. tricobalt torpedoes)
In an arena, automatically assigning your five opponents to five hotkeys.
Have a number of keys (eg. F6 to F12) become assignable targeting keys. For example, if I see Hale in a match I can select him and then press ALT-F6 to assign that key to him. Now whenever I press F6 I target Hale. :cool:
4. AI options for pets would be great, I'm never against giving players more control. As far as disabling subsystems, I have mixed feelings. It could get pretty annoying. Is the 'fun' that is created by telling your pets to disable someone's engines greater than the 'unfun' the target receives from a significant movement penatly? Perhaps it coulg go on some new type of fighter that suffers a significant DPS penalty, as opposed to putting subsystem targeting on existing fighters.
Lastly, the fact that you don't want those fighters to be able to disable shields is a good indication that the shield proc likely needs to changed to something less severe.
Any update on your current thinking re: Hangar equipment Mk levels, rarity, and perhaps fighters with different weapon loadouts [such as tetryon, polaron etc.]?
I am planning on seeing if I can find the time somewhere to add different rarity levels at least. Possibly Mk'd, possibly making them leveless. As for what would be the specific differences, I don't know yet. I'll have to dig into it to see what makes the most sense. There is a ton on my plate at the moment, though, so I would keep your expectations modest.
3. Hmmm, not sure how I feel about the idea. I get the feeling that by trying to make spam less annoying you run the risk of buffing it and making it too survivable. Invisibility also runs the risk of being annoying in it's own way (certainly didn't make cloaked tractor beam mines any less aggravating). My suggestion would be to improve targeting before employing a band-aid solution. One of the following could work:
4. AI options for pets would be great, I'm never against giving players more control. As far as disabling subsystems, I have mixed feelings. It could get pretty annoying. Is the 'fun' that is created by telling your pets to disable someone's engines greater than the 'unfun' the target receives from a significant movement penatly? Perhaps it coulg go on some new type of fighter that suffers a significant DPS penalty, as opposed to putting subsystem targeting on existing fighters.
The intent is, in fact, to give them more surviveability, so I think that is fine.
Subsystem targeting would probably come at the price of not buffing their dps to compensate for the reduced number of waves that could be out in the current proposal. So, if you you want dps bang you go for BoP (which under this scenario, would be buffed, since you'd have fewer out); if you want CC and harassment, go for frigates; if you want subsystem targeting support, you go for fighters.
I am planning on seeing if I can find the time somewhere to add different rarity levels at least. Possibly Mk'd, possibly making them leveless. As for what would be the specific differences, I don't know yet. I'll have to dig into it to see what makes the most sense. There is a ton on my plate at the moment, though, so I would keep your expectations modest.
Appreciate any time spent here! Every other ship class gets to fully partake in the equipment upgrade meta game, but carrier pilots have no upgrade path for the bulk of their damage dealing capacity.
That said, balance should absolutely be a priority.
One question on hangar items; is there a reason why we have port and starboard versions of the same fighter or BoP?
One question on hangar items; is there a reason why we have port and starboard versions of the same fighter or BoP?
It's a technical issue - we may or may not be able to get rid of it some day. Way back when they were first made, getting carriers to work required some...creative data work.
ISo, if you you want dps bang you go for BoP (which under this scenario, would be buffed, since you'd have fewer out); if you want CC and harassment, go for frigates; if you want subsystem targeting support, you go for fighters.
I like the sound of that. Would allow people to have a wider array of what they can bring to fit their play style.
On rarity. Why not have each rank of rarity bring either more hull/shields or more damage. Depending on what the pet is set for. Maybe a BoP would get more of a speed defense bonus the higher rarity it is. Something like that. Or maybe a slight damage increase as it gets rarer like the space weapons.
Either way if we ever get different levels of pets, crafting them would be awesome.
1. Current internal iteration of the Kar'fi Phase Shift Aux drain is at -12/sec from where it was at -10/sec. This puts the full duration Aux requirement at around 75 (previous full duration Aux requirement was about 50.)
2. After some discussion with Geko about some of the special ability console inconsistencies, we're leaning towards starting to shift over special abilities to universal consoles - this would include the Kar'fi Phase Shift console and, where and as feasible, existing and new ships' special abilities as well.
3. Considering making some deployables to be essentially cloaked until some point barrier. This could theoretically include fighters, support platforms, syphon drones, etc. Almost certainly not the deployable frigates and BoP. Maybe mines. The purpose of this would be both to increase the surviveability of deployables and also to reduce spam-on-screen. This could be instead of or in addition to a straight Defense buff to small deployables.
4. Looking into seeing if we can put together some special carrier AI commands including Escort (follow designated friend, attack what attacks friend) and Intercept (attacks, in priority order, torpedoes, mines, fighters.) Unfortunately, at least in any initial iteration, this probably wouldn't be on a hanger-by-hanger basis. Where this would really shine is with different types of fighters having a chance to proc certain subsystem offline results (not shields, but depending on the fighter type, Weapons, Engines or Auxiliary). So, you could set your deployables that can sometimes take out Weapons, for example, to Escort your healer.
I am particularly interested in your thoughts on point #3 in regards to which deployables you think would (in your view) be good for this kind of mechanic, and also at what range.
EDIT: Modified #3 to broaden possible distance values for this possibility.
1) Sounds fine
2) Just have 2 types - Ship Specific Consoles and Universal, that way it won't confuse players in thinking that a console can go in any ship. Because you know there is going to be player rage if they go spend money for a Galaxy-X in thinking you could outfit the Phaser Lance or Cloak on any other ship but to find out it's for Galaxy-X only.
3) Don't see the use in that.
You guys still havn't fixed the bugs with the Scorpion where they track cloaked players or how they turn friendly and still attack you.
4) I could see simple commands like that for players to Defend or Attack targets.
I am planning on seeing if I can find the time somewhere to add different rarity levels at least. Possibly Mk'd, possibly making them leveless. As for what would be the specific differences, I don't know yet. I'll have to dig into it to see what makes the most sense. There is a ton on my plate at the moment, though, so I would keep your expectations modest.
why rarity levels? Why not a BOP pet with more DPS, or more of a turn rate, or faster, or with better torpedoes, or different canon abilities (scatter shot) (with deficiencies, of course)?
Because after you get the 'top level' you have nothing to try to try to obtain.
1. Current internal iteration of the Kar'fi Phase Shift Aux drain is at -12/sec from where it was at -10/sec. This puts the full duration Aux requirement at around 75 (previous full duration Aux requirement was about 50.)
It's all well and good, but I still strongly believe that the console ability is not the answer if you're seriously trying to boost the survivability of the Kar'fi; all you really have to do to help out is switch around the ensign slot and things would be improved. The console will give the Kar'fi a cool power, but it will also incite more QQ about Klingons being OP from Fed players that don't understand why they can't target the ship that's shooting them.
I should clarify, making them universal consoles doesn't mean they would automatically be usable on other ships. That would be on a case-by-case basis.
2. After some discussion with Geko about some of the special ability console inconsistencies, we're leaning towards starting to shift over special abilities to universal consoles - this would include the Kar'fi Phase Shift console and, where and as feasible, existing and new ships' special abilities as well.
Don't do it, just don't EVER!!! If you start making any of the console's transferable then it will open the floodgates for people screaming to get their Defiant cloak-console or the Marauder Raider-console or the B'Rel enhanced BC-console universally transferred, and that would be the tip of the iceberg. If you shift them to consoles, please go with the safe option and make them ship specific.
3. Considering making some deployables to be essentially cloaked until some point barrier. This could theoretically include fighters, support platforms, syphon drones, etc. Almost certainly not the deployable frigates and BoP. Maybe mines. The purpose of this would be both to increase the surviveability of deployables and also to reduce spam-on-screen. This could be instead of or in addition to a straight Defense buff to small deployables.
While that sounds like some good ole sneaky fun, I don't see the appeal. Sure it would reduce the on screen clutter, but only temporarily and people would become confused as the screen gets flooded with clutter as they walk into range. Unfortunately the only way to reduce clutter is to reduce the ability to spam it, with the best options being mines as to reduce the carrier fighters reduces their role and purpose.
If you're really keen to see this sort of mechanic introduced, then simply create a new carrier deployable that is a "Stealth (insert role here)" be it a fighter or a bomber that is programmed to cloak 100% of the time while not in combat.
4. Looking into seeing if we can put together some special carrier AI commands including Escort (follow designated friend, attack what attacks friend) and Intercept (attacks, in priority order, torpedoes, mines, fighters.) Unfortunately, at least in any initial iteration, this probably wouldn't be on a hanger-by-hanger basis. Where this would really shine is with different types of fighters having a chance to proc certain subsystem offline results (not shields, but depending on the fighter type, Weapons, Engines or Auxiliary). So, you could set your deployables that can sometimes take out Weapons, for example, to Escort your healer.
Additional UI commands would be a nice addition to the carriers, however I really don't think that it would be the best idea to have the able to target subsystems.
Assuming that you did then obviously the fighters (or whatever) would have to have a weaker version than was available with the ship versions, but would still have to have the offline-proc chance; long explanation short it would become possible for carrier pilots to put people on permanent lockdown so long as the fighters are up and running, and thus they would become unbeatable in 1v1 situations. Even the high-octane escort/raptor/BoP pilots who can drop people in under 10 seconds on demand, would lose because all the carrier pilot would have to do is:
A) Target Subsystem (henceforth TSS): Weapons until buffs expire TSS: Shields, engage lockdown abilities
Step 3: Profit...It would be much worse if you could assign individual hangars to a TSS task....
Comments
Heretic, from my viewpoint the reason why Klingon Carriers are so troublesome in PvP is due to the fact they have the leathal aspects of all 3 classes (Tactical, Engineer, and Science).
Right now, the combination of Lt Commander or Commander Engineering and Science BO slots makes it a very powerful tanking abiilty that makes it very difficult to damage an opponent. Hazzard Emitters at full Aux has proved even on Escorts to give them a powerful tanking ability. And has led to cries in the PvP circle of being too good. And the Carriers greatly benefits from this far more than Federation Science Ships.
Now depending on what's to come with Hazzard Emitters as a heal, plays a great deal with the changes to the Carriers.
Secondly, is the Lt Commander Tactical abilities. Which in a Carrier can carry a great arsenal of leathal abilities such as BO3, HY3, FAW3, or Disable 3. Currently, the favored ability is FAW3, even after the recent changes after Season 4 went live and a Carrier in a broadside coupled with Frigate spawn has very strong damage potential.
And that leaves the Carrier Spawns themselves. While the fighters aren't really strong offensively, it does create a much needed distraction to keep players from using various AoE abilities. But the real troublesome spawns is the Frigates. Like I mentioned above they have very strong damage potential, and the damage is far signficant than Photonic Fleet and Fleet Support being used at the same time.
BoPs or the Fel'kiri Frigates have HPs around 30k, that of a Tier 4 battlecruiser or stronger than a Frigate NPC at Tier 5. BoPs can be spawned in 2 or 3 groups and that damage potential alone is significant, the cannons an aid in stripping an opponent's shields and the torpedoes can cause significant kinetic damage on a unshielded opponent. The Kar'fi's frigate can drop Tricobalt Mines, which can either stun an opponent or even destroy an already immobilized player.
All in all, these combinations is what makes the Vo'Quv a powerful opponent. I feel that even if the NPC spawn ability is disabled, the carrier's basic BO and Weapon layouts are more than sufficient to survive.
And in PvP matches, you getting 2 or more carriers, can be trouble. I never seen 4 or 5 carriers in a match before, but I been in plenty of encounters with 3 and that is a powerful deterent, where they can support one another and flood the skies with NPCs.
Now what to nerf or not is up to you. Personally, I would like to see Frigate spawns be reduced to an appropriate number between 10000 to 15000 hps. That or Frigate Spawn times is longer in duration, for right now a player can effectively get 2 or 3 frigate groups launched, and if a player is 1 on 1, ends up being more like 3 v 1.
Since like I mentioned above that multiple carriers are troublesome, perhaps you could consider PvP matches having a hard number of NPCs allowed to spawn. Or players have a limited ammount of spawns (which goes the same with mines) in a PvP match. For instance a Carrier would be limited to 4 BoP groups or 10 sets of fighters. That way they can't spam at will and have to think more strategically.
I hope whatever is changed that it's reasonable.
They are talking about having less npcs but making them a little stronger to make up for the numbers. And they've never separated pve stuff and pvp stuff, I doubt they'll start now.
Sound like you want Carriers to be superior to anyone and cannot be taken down in 1 on 1s. I disagree, a Carrier shouldn't be required to have multiple players to take it down.
As for less NPCs by buffing them, I wouldn't mind if it was the fighters. But I highly disagree in buffing those Frigates. As I said above, I think this Frigates need less HPs, because in mass those Frigates are too effective. If anyone doubt me, please feel free to go against a capable Vo'Quv captain and have him have nothing but BoPs and spawn 2 or 3 groups worth, lets see how long until things start going his way.
As for seperating PvP and PvE, given right now with S4 Ground PVP, looks like they got to start considering it because there is no longer any chance to properly balance PvP and PvE given the mechanics. Unless someone gets the short end of the stick.
I ask, what do you think of the Kar fi? Since it doesn't have the lethal aspects of all 3 classes.
Back on topic, I cant wait to try these changes out, whenever they come. Looking forward to the Kar fi.
Indeed, nobody should be penalized. But the Vo'Quv even without it's NPCs is very capable of going 1 on 1 with another ship.
As for the Kar'fi, I think it could use a bit more defense to it. But it's not as formidable as the Vo'Quv. Dunno, perhaps exchange the LT Tactical for another LT Engineering slot.
Solution: diminishing returns. Add a small debuff that kicks in when more than two [player] ships target another, rising with the number of ships targeting.
What's everyone's opinion on bringing more variety via rarity, mk etc. to hanger bay items?
First of all: when they get hit, they should die exceedingly fast. That is simply a fact of its size. my particle beam has roughly a beam diameter of about hald the bloody fighters whole size.
if the beam hits, the fighter is toast.
No way to magic that away without opening the can of worms. (aka: if the fighters has special shields that reinforce it, why don't bigger ships get those things? etc...)
So, fighters need a passive ability to ecm, aka lower incoming shots accuracy. That is the ONLY plausible way that fits both the ip and common sense.
increasing a little fighters survivability with ecm is also more plausible than trying the same thing with a 600+ meter ship (since someone will ask why bigger ships wouldn't get this..). ECM does have its limits after all.
As far as fighters firepower goes: they should all have dual cannons and permanent rapid fire.
About the karfi: make it turn quicker and see where it goes.
Now for the complaints about Mines. What a joke. Mines are a passive way to set up a defensive position. They're relatively weak. I find it laughable the way people talk about Mines like they're so deadly. If they bother you so much, slot a scatter volley in there. Its not a bad skill, and can give you some of that aoe protection you obviously need. In fact, the whole complaint about Spam in general is kind of weak. Why don't they just give us a button which helps us directly acquire the Enemy Ship target, so we don't have to do that ourselves? If anything, I've always felt that Mines didn't spam enough. The only area of the game I know of where mines actually get interesting is in Halting the Gorn advance. Everywhere else they are a big joke. If you can't get past a few mines your team either has the wrong skills, or you might consider putting shields on your ship. I've seen people on both sides complain about this, and I just don't get it. Toughen up a little. Let the big tugboats have their strategy, and you have yours. There are counters to most things out there.
The Vo'quv has:
Lt. Commander Tactical (3 Slots)
Lt. Commander Engineer (3 Slots)
Lt. Science (2 Slots)
Lt. Commander Science (4 Slots)
Yes it is true that the Vo'quv can in fact have the Beam Overload 3 and so forth, but you are forgetting something. The Ship is a Jack of all Trades and master of none. Its turn rate is by far the worst in the game, even a Star Cruiser can run donuts around a Vo'quv. This means that isolating a shield facing is rather easy, which in turn means their defensiveness is greatly diminished. Secondly because their turn rate is so bad, they can in fact maintain speed to keep their evasion value up, with one HUGE flaw. In order to maintain that defense value they are flying straight and directly away from their comrades. Isolate and destroy. Thirdly, because of their heavy science and engineering focus they are likely to need a strong auxiliary, which draws power away from either Shields, Engines or Weapons power. This in turn directly effects their toughness (Shields), their Engines (Defense), or Damage output (Weapons power). Assuming the Vo'quv is using 6 beams, he likely has an EPS Regulator meaning he has only 2 more slots to put in a Hull protector + Field Emitter. His shields aren't all that good either.
Don't get me wrong, the Vo'quv is a good ship, but I can't believe someone would make wild claims about it being all powerful. Its design is very jack of all trades. The Tier 4 slot of science also tends to be primarily very defensive, or extremely difficult to line up (Unless your enemy is foolish). I don't see many people feeling overly threatened by Tractor beam repulsors on a Vo'quv. Feedback pulse is a nice touch, but again can be dealt with. If you don't like the fact that a Vo'quv can tie up your time, then you miss the point. If you allow the Vo'quv to beat you up, then you deserve to take the beating, but don't play his game!
Now if the team with the Vo'quv is smart, and knows how to get everyone playing to their strengths, good on them they should win. I'm tired of hearing about nerfs to abilities just because people can't recognize that they have to play to their strengths and use a strategy.
Is the massive Vo'quv team a good strategy? It can be. And really, you SHOULD be afraid of a Fleet of those big lumbering hulks floating around. They're meant to conquer worlds. Singly they're not so great, but in an organized team of -anything- they get a lot better.
To answer the question why I think the Vo'quv has a Lt. Commander Tactical slot. Firstly, look at their Console arrangement (3/4/2). Secondly, Look at their turn rate. They need SOMETHING to deal with/help that, or make up for it. There are a few legitimate ways of doing this. Tactical team helps with their shields and dealing with some debuffs (that they WILL take, such as focus fire). The Lt. Comm Slot allows them to either go more aggressive, or to maneuver with greater efficacy, or throw up some defense... for short bursts.
You have got to be joking. If you're not going to use the pets, go play a Negh'var. Its tougher, more maneuverable (Defense), and packs way more wallop. Hell, the thing can cloak as well. Wait there's more, there's another ship that's better. Fly the Refit Cruiser, its even more maneuverable. Its kind of like a really tanky raptor in fact. Oh, and you get more weapons on your ship! You get more tactical slots so those weapons count for more!
Maybe this statement was made as hyperbole but its a bit silly.
How about giving small craft like fighters an innate stealth bonus,so they can't be targeted at ranges of more than 7.5 km? Maybe combined with a high defense bonus?
How about a hangar bay that launches a Klingon/Lethean Boarding Party that can take over a ship,a bit like Borg assimilation does with player characters and Bridge Officers?
How about hanger bays that allow for player controlled fighters to be launched? (these are not pets,but players flying a fighter)
How about giving carriers other innate skills,like Emergency Power to Engines/Shields/Weapons/Aux or the Engineering/Science/Tactical Teams?
ZOMG these would be cool.
That's what all the complaints about mine and pet spam are about. It doesn't really matter if their desructive and defensive powers is accurate or not - they hit all the weaknesses of this game's UI and cause needless frustration.
How about you go back adn re-read what I said. I didn't say get rid of NPCs, I said that Vo'Quvs are so strong that in 1 on 1 fights that they don't need NPCs. Having NPCs gives them a greater advantage.
Mines should be reinvisioned in STO. More Bank and harder to shoot at, but less respawn time.
For instance in C&H, they make great barrierss around the Cap points.
1. Current internal iteration of the Kar'fi Phase Shift Aux drain is at -12/sec from where it was at -10/sec. This puts the full duration Aux requirement at around 75 (previous full duration Aux requirement was about 50.)
2. After some discussion with Geko about some of the special ability console inconsistencies, we're leaning towards starting to shift over special abilities to universal consoles - this would include the Kar'fi Phase Shift console and, where and as feasible, existing and new ships' special abilities as well.
3. Considering making some deployables to be essentially cloaked until some point barrier. This could theoretically include fighters, support platforms, syphon drones, etc. Almost certainly not the deployable frigates and BoP. Maybe mines. The purpose of this would be both to increase the surviveability of deployables and also to reduce spam-on-screen. This could be instead of or in addition to a straight Defense buff to small deployables.
4. Looking into seeing if we can put together some special carrier AI commands including Escort (follow designated friend, attack what attacks friend) and Intercept (attacks, in priority order, torpedoes, mines, fighters.) Unfortunately, at least in any initial iteration, this probably wouldn't be on a hanger-by-hanger basis. Where this would really shine is with different types of fighters having a chance to proc certain subsystem offline results (not shields, but depending on the fighter type, Weapons, Engines or Auxiliary). So, you could set your deployables that can sometimes take out Weapons, for example, to Escort your healer.
I am particularly interested in your thoughts on point #3 in regards to which deployables you think would (in your view) be good for this kind of mechanic, and also at what range.
EDIT: Modified #3 to broaden possible distance values for this possibility.
1. okay.
2. Yes, please. More choices are always good.
3. How about cloaked repair drones ? The would only decloak to heal. That way you would get at least a little healing before your enemy can blow them up.
4. Sounds nice.
2) Is this in regards to all special abilities, or just new ones? Ablative Escorts would be terrifying.
3) I don't really think it's worth it, IMO. During 90% of battles, everyone will be within 10KM of you (or within 15KM, max). Having stealthed deployables won't help because you'll be able to see them all at that range. All it will do is put you at a disadvantage when against Carriers, because you won't be able to see what they're fielding up until you're in close. And then the clutter is there anyways.
Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding.
I should clarify, making them universal consoles doesn't mean they would automatically be usable on other ships. That would be on a case-by-case basis.
As much as possible, we would like to make them transferable, but obviously in some cases it either won't work at all (saucer separation, for example) or risks being really problematic balance-wise (ablative, phase shift). Also, while we would like to do this for all abilities, I can't guarantee when we would have time to get to everything, so we'd have to see on this.
As for deployable visibility, I think it depends on the distance. I put it badly initially when I said "at some point close to the perceptibility barrier" - what I meant was, this would not be intended to function like true cloaking. I have edited the earlier post to reflect this.
At, say, 15km, you're right, it just means you have less warning for what is coming at you. At 10km it's probably a modest effect. At 5km, the effect would be more noticeable, and would certainly clear up a chunk of the visual clutter at the very least. It would also make it harder to target deployables on strafing runs or that are on friends who are not right on top of you.
Any update on your current thinking re: Hangar equipment Mk levels, rarity, and perhaps fighters with different weapon loadouts [such as tetryon, polaron etc.]?
1. That's an improvement, although I feel my previous example might be able to create more interesting gameplay:
2. Sweet, consistency is always a good thing. I'm glad that you guys decided not to create more inconsistency by having different power consoles behave differently.
3. Hmmm, not sure how I feel about the idea. I get the feeling that by trying to make spam less annoying you run the risk of buffing it and making it too survivable. Invisibility also runs the risk of being annoying in it's own way (certainly didn't make cloaked tractor beam mines any less aggravating). My suggestion would be to improve targeting before employing a band-aid solution. One of the following could work:
4. AI options for pets would be great, I'm never against giving players more control. As far as disabling subsystems, I have mixed feelings. It could get pretty annoying. Is the 'fun' that is created by telling your pets to disable someone's engines greater than the 'unfun' the target receives from a significant movement penatly? Perhaps it coulg go on some new type of fighter that suffers a significant DPS penalty, as opposed to putting subsystem targeting on existing fighters.
Lastly, the fact that you don't want those fighters to be able to disable shields is a good indication that the shield proc likely needs to changed to something less severe.
I am planning on seeing if I can find the time somewhere to add different rarity levels at least. Possibly Mk'd, possibly making them leveless. As for what would be the specific differences, I don't know yet. I'll have to dig into it to see what makes the most sense. There is a ton on my plate at the moment, though, so I would keep your expectations modest.
The intent is, in fact, to give them more surviveability, so I think that is fine.
Subsystem targeting would probably come at the price of not buffing their dps to compensate for the reduced number of waves that could be out in the current proposal. So, if you you want dps bang you go for BoP (which under this scenario, would be buffed, since you'd have fewer out); if you want CC and harassment, go for frigates; if you want subsystem targeting support, you go for fighters.
That said, balance should absolutely be a priority.
One question on hangar items; is there a reason why we have port and starboard versions of the same fighter or BoP?
It's a technical issue - we may or may not be able to get rid of it some day. Way back when they were first made, getting carriers to work required some...creative data work.
I like the sound of that. Would allow people to have a wider array of what they can bring to fit their play style.
On rarity. Why not have each rank of rarity bring either more hull/shields or more damage. Depending on what the pet is set for. Maybe a BoP would get more of a speed defense bonus the higher rarity it is. Something like that. Or maybe a slight damage increase as it gets rarer like the space weapons.
Either way if we ever get different levels of pets, crafting them would be awesome.
1) Sounds fine
2) Just have 2 types - Ship Specific Consoles and Universal, that way it won't confuse players in thinking that a console can go in any ship. Because you know there is going to be player rage if they go spend money for a Galaxy-X in thinking you could outfit the Phaser Lance or Cloak on any other ship but to find out it's for Galaxy-X only.
3) Don't see the use in that.
You guys still havn't fixed the bugs with the Scorpion where they track cloaked players or how they turn friendly and still attack you.
4) I could see simple commands like that for players to Defend or Attack targets.
why rarity levels? Why not a BOP pet with more DPS, or more of a turn rate, or faster, or with better torpedoes, or different canon abilities (scatter shot) (with deficiencies, of course)?
Because after you get the 'top level' you have nothing to try to try to obtain.
They pretty much have to, otherwise you would loose another console slot if you use the special ability. :eek:
It's all well and good, but I still strongly believe that the console ability is not the answer if you're seriously trying to boost the survivability of the Kar'fi; all you really have to do to help out is switch around the ensign slot and things would be improved. The console will give the Kar'fi a cool power, but it will also incite more QQ about Klingons being OP from Fed players that don't understand why they can't target the ship that's shooting them.
Don't do it, just don't EVER!!! If you start making any of the console's transferable then it will open the floodgates for people screaming to get their Defiant cloak-console or the Marauder Raider-console or the B'Rel enhanced BC-console universally transferred, and that would be the tip of the iceberg. If you shift them to consoles, please go with the safe option and make them ship specific.
While that sounds like some good ole sneaky fun, I don't see the appeal. Sure it would reduce the on screen clutter, but only temporarily and people would become confused as the screen gets flooded with clutter as they walk into range. Unfortunately the only way to reduce clutter is to reduce the ability to spam it, with the best options being mines as to reduce the carrier fighters reduces their role and purpose.
If you're really keen to see this sort of mechanic introduced, then simply create a new carrier deployable that is a "Stealth (insert role here)" be it a fighter or a bomber that is programmed to cloak 100% of the time while not in combat.
Additional UI commands would be a nice addition to the carriers, however I really don't think that it would be the best idea to have the able to target subsystems.
Assuming that you did then obviously the fighters (or whatever) would have to have a weaker version than was available with the ship versions, but would still have to have the offline-proc chance; long explanation short it would become possible for carrier pilots to put people on permanent lockdown so long as the fighters are up and running, and thus they would become unbeatable in 1v1 situations. Even the high-octane escort/raptor/BoP pilots who can drop people in under 10 seconds on demand, would lose because all the carrier pilot would have to do is:
A) Target Subsystem (henceforth TSS): Weapons until buffs expire
Step 3: Profit...It would be much worse if you could assign individual hangars to a TSS task....