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.
Rarity levels would also include improved functionality and/or different functionality. The former is more likely than the latter.
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.
Shifting bridge officer slotting on the Kar'fi is something that has been discussed, and may still be done if the changes discussed prove inadequate.
We would, however, like to avoid doing this if possible, first because we would like to find a way to make the ship viable while still preserving its unique-ish bridge officer station slotting, and second because shifting around bridge officer slotting is both technically messy and potentially alienates players who were happy with the existing slotting.
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.
Many (maybe even most) of the existing special ship powers would probably remain tied to their ship. Any ability that was transferable would have to be closely looked at for balance and technical feasibility. Our intent is to err on the side of caution in this area.
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....
Clearly, if we were to go down this path it would require the numbers set such that this would not be the case that a carrier could put a target in complete lockdown.
Ideally, it would mean by choosing to have one of the types of fighters - giving up a hanger slot for that - you would essentially get the equivalent of a Target Subsystems power that was on a separate cooldown, but was unreliable in timing and fragile (since fighters can be targeted).
Moreover, the idea here is for the offline proc only - not the power level reduction - which makes it inferior for subsystem debuffing functionality. (In place, of course, the fighters would still be doing their current DPS, though overall this would be less DPS given that the number of wings would be reduced.)
In general, I think things like the cloak/phase cloak/saucer sep/etc. should be only usable on that ship.
HOWEVER, I also think there should be ship universal power consoles.
My big preference would be, give every ship a Universal Console Slot.
You can pick the console of your choice to go in there, including power consoles.
Some power consoles are restricted to ships. Power consoles that come with ships are restricted to those ships, with rare exception. Power consoles MUST go in the Universal slot.
Crafted power consoles work on ANY ship. These still have to go in the universal slot. I would suggest including some options BASED on the specialty ships. For example, a crafted console that gives people the Excelsior-style transwarp and boosts speed and turnrate. (If it has NO combat function, it doesn't belong on a console. But a non-combat power plus stats might be okay.)
You have the option NOT to use a power console and use the universal slot for Sci/Tactical/Engineering consoles.
Also, from a simple design logic standpoint (and this may not be beloved), you might look at taking some things like the Red Matter Capacitor and that ship device that makes you hard to hit from the Devidian series and turning them into consoles rather than devices. Maybe the same with the Scorpion fighter if you made it non-consumable.
I think it would be a CLEARER design choice if devices were fairly standard consumables and powers were all handled as consoles, particularly if every ship has a slot for one power.
So the Scorpion Fighter becomes a power console. The Red Matter Capacitor becomes a power console. If that means bumping up their effectiveness, do it. But I think it makes balance and clarity of what things do a lot easier to convey.
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.
One question, could these 'carrier AI commands' be expanded to work for other 'pet creating' abilities, such as Photonic Fleet, the MVAM console's 2 pets, the Galaxy-R's saucer, and the D'Kyr's support shuttle. Heck even Fleet Support and of course the Scorpion Fighters could use the benefit of such commands and everyone can use those two sources to create pets.
Naturally 'all pets' would get the same command no matter the source for the pets, so if a Carrier cranks out whatever is in its hangars and then pops out Scorpion fighters all the pets would get controlled by the same commands. Please consider that Carriers aren't the only ships that could benefit from such 'pet AI commands' being added so if anything that should hopefully bump up the priority to get such pet AI commands added to the game. If anything that might make getting these commands for carriers done a bit faster/better if it is realized they can be used for far more than just carrier pets. Which could also work towards allowing more flexibility in what Carriers can have as pets due to more types of pets being able to work with the AI. One option is for different pets to interpret the same command differently some pets may interpret a follow the command to 'follow an ally'/'escort an ally' and interpret it as stay near that ally and focus on whatever that ally is targeting, other pets could interpret the same command as support that ally with abilities while other pets could interpret that same command as stay near this ally and target anything that attacks that ally, which may or may not be the target's ally. Simply hide the pet AI command skills from appearing in the power list unless the character has some way of generating pets either due to a skill, item, or component aspect of their ship at which point in time they can be added to the tray bar as any other power can be added.
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.
never make /damage/stun) mines invisible under any circumstances.
They can seriously TRIBBLE players so they need to be visible.
fighters shall have their temporary cloack for all i care - they aren't instant TRIBBLE.
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.
I'm a little curious. I can understand phase shift being unbalancing on other classes of ships but how would it be unbalancing on other carriers? The Kar'Fi and the Vo'quv operate on the same principles, right? Or is there something I'm missing?
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.
Definitely something that could or should be added to mines. (But please give them a subtle or no sound FX for cloaking, otherwise it would get a little "loud". Maybe it should be more like the MES effect). I can see a range of 3-8 km where they can become visible to others. At minimum when they come into arming range.
But perception/stealth sight buffs (including Sensor Scan, Tachyon Detection Grid and Science innate sensor bonus) should definitely help to increase this (but 10-12 km as "outer" range might be fine.)
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: I Guess I could live with that.. And if it were a universal console, it might help, though the only slot left, after taking the Borg console into consideration, would be the Tactical slot, because the Sci and Engi slots are such prime requirements to the Ships functionality.
2: I'm all for it. Makes me wonder about ships like the Garumba and the Galaxy X though. Since both ships have not only 1 Specific ability, but 2 or 3. The Galaxy X has it's Spinal Lance, and Cloak while the Garumba has it's Seige Mode, Disruptor Lance, and a Weapon Power Siphon tied to it's Seige Mode.
3: I'm all for this. And adding a higher defense rating to Smaller ships makes absolute sense.
4: I'd love to see commands like: Attack/Defend(If targeting an Ally, the pets will defend that target until a new target is selected and commanded other wise. If Targeting a Foe, the pets will attack that foe until commanded otherwise.)Return(The Pets will return to the Carrier and De-Spawn)Follow(The Pets will Stop defending or attacking any targets and return to you, then will defend you)
Also, if/when you add another Hanger Slot to the Kar'fi, I'd love to see perhaps 2 new Kar'fi restricted Pets created. Perhaps something similar to the Shield Recovery Drones the Vor'quv has, except they are more of a Buff type pet. Perhaps something that helps to power up your Weapons and increases your Damage with Energy Weapons as long as they are out (or who you place them on) And maybe a Scout/Mine sweeper Pet that can be used for Destroying Mines/FAW 1 or perhaps can "Confuse" the Mines so that they work for you temporarly by scrambling their targeting Systems. Just a thought.
4: I'd love to see commands like: Attack/Defend(If targeting an Ally, the pets will defend that target until a new target is selected and commanded other wise. If Targeting a Foe, the pets will attack that foe until commanded otherwise.)Return(The Pets will return to the Carrier and De-Spawn)Follow(The Pets will Stop defending or attacking any targets and return to you, then will defend you)
Also, if/when you add another Hanger Slot to the Kar'fi, I'd love to see perhaps 2 new Kar'fi restricted Pets created. Perhaps something similar to the Shield Recovery Drones the Vor'quv has, except they are more of a Buff type pet. Perhaps something that helps to power up your Weapons and increases your Damage with Energy Weapons as long as they are out (or who you place them on) And maybe a Scout/Mine sweeper Pet that can be used for Destroying Mines/FAW 1 or perhaps can "Confuse" the Mines so that they work for you temporarly by scrambling their targeting Systems. Just a thought.
Pet commands ftw definitely.
Kar'fii definitely needs more pet options, would make it a more viable option, especially if they were of a similar type to those you suggested.+2
4: I'd love to see commands like: Attack/Defend(If targeting an Ally, the pets will defend that target until a new target is selected and commanded other wise. If Targeting a Foe, the pets will attack that foe until commanded otherwise.)Return(The Pets will return to the Carrier and De-Spawn)Follow(The Pets will Stop defending or attacking any targets and return to you, then will defend you)
Also, if/when you add another Hanger Slot to the Kar'fi, I'd love to see perhaps 2 new Kar'fi restricted Pets created. Perhaps something similar to the Shield Recovery Drones the Vor'quv has, except they are more of a Buff type pet. Perhaps something that helps to power up your Weapons and increases your Damage with Energy Weapons as long as they are out (or who you place them on) And maybe a Scout/Mine sweeper Pet that can be used for Destroying Mines/FAW 1 or perhaps can "Confuse" the Mines so that they work for you temporarly by scrambling their targeting Systems. Just a thought.
Pet commands ftw definitely.
Kar'fii definitely needs more pet options, would make it a more viable option, especially if they were of a similar type to those you suggested.+2
First of all, just want to thank the devs for inviting community input on important issues such as this, it is a good way to go and this is a great community to draw from.
Controls:
As someone who regularly uses the Vo'Quv carrier (have also used the kar'fi a fair bit also), I have been hoping for the implementation of a smart pet control scheme since early last year and am really glad it is now on the horizon. Heretic, you said at the start of this thread:
"Controls
This is being looked into. This is, unfortunately, a very meaty problem that is going to be expensive to address; user interface changes are not cheap. That being said, we are seeing if there are some things we can do to ease things a bit in the mid-term."
Given that it is a meaty problem that is expensive to address, I really believe you should start off simple. There are 3 basic commands that I believe should be implemented for all attacking pets and need to be somewhat compatible with Non-Attacking Pets (NAP: shield drones, repair drones):
1. Attack my target (or heal my target for a NAP)- remains persistent until new command issued or target destroyed. Once target destroyed, pets will return to carrier for new instructions (NAPS will heal carrier by default)
2. Defend my target (For NAPs this will have the same function as attack, however if the mechanics of doing that are too difficult then some sort of timer should be applied to prevent its use (and non-usability needs to be visually apparent))
3. Return to carrier
If 2 is much too difficult to implement, then 1 and 3 would still be a huge improvement over what we currently have. It would also be preferable if the controls applied to each hanger, otherwise there may be context issues if someone uses, for example, a shield drone in one hanger and a Bop in another.
I believe these three basic commands would make pets so much more combat effective that you would want to be careful about the other changes you make. I also believe that you don't really want too many more than 3 because:
* you said yourself implementation is expensive (so don't make it more complex than it needs to be)
* simplicity is really good in the heat of battle, and the controls attack/defend/return are intuitive and easy for people to pick up
* I would imagine it might be easier to start small and build up depending on community response, than to add a whole lot and have problems with bugs, and possible negative community responses.
Subsystem Targetting:
As for subsystem targeting, I can already imagine some of the things that might be said by regular fed players in the forums if this is done incorrectly. Combined with the amount of subsystem targeting that is already available to carriers... are you sure you want to add more? How many specific counters would another player have to have to survive a sci captain in a carrier which now has fighters that target subsystems? 4? 5? 6? How much would be too much? It would be fun to have fighters with subsystem targeting, but the 'unfun' of the opposing player(s) might far exceed that measure.
If you really want it, then I suggest the following:
1. Control interface should still be simple- perhaps along with the controls mentioned above you can have a 'target subsystem mode' bar with four settings (weapon/shield/engine/aux) which sits under each respective pet control bar. The player selects the 'mode' thus selecting what subsytem they want their fighters to shoot at. It will stay in that mode until the player selects otherwise. There is a 2 second window every 15 seconds for the mode to be changed once the fighters are launched (to prevent abuse)
2. Once the fighters are attacking the target, they get say 1 subsystem attack every 15 seconds, and there is a % chance that the attack is successful (say 50% guaranteed). Using this ruleset, you now have:
- something that is easy to adjust based on community response
- is fun for the player where they might get a 'fight-changing' subsystem disable
- but is not too overpowered where the player has limited control over the ability (so it is not easy to chain with other abilities of a similar nature)
- and the opposing player can choose to take out the fighters to avoid another possible hit in 15 seconds (which adds to the depth of strategy at play)
Spam reduction:
Whilst I have never had too much of an issue with spam on either side, I do agree that without a more intelligent targeting model, the spam can be more abusive than tactical- and particularly when it slows down other peoples frame rate (thus advantaging the wealthier gamers with newer rigs- and yes I am one of them).
To be honest I would be happy with something like a max of 4 fighters/shield drones/syphons (2 for each hangar) and 2 Bops/frigates (1 for each hangar). Obviously they would need to be buffed for this to work, but not too extremely:
1. Call in any time, and are persistent (don't fade away)
2. If ordered to return to carrier (see above) then perhaps they can dock and get a repair or are instantly repaired with a very short (say 5 second) delay before they can exit and fight again. The delay in this case would be needed to prevent abuse, but should not be too long to make its usage too costly in battle.
3. Fighters should have very very high defence ratings as a survivability buff (perhaps as much as a 15-25% chance to be hit (regardless of all possible accuracy buffs the enemy ship may have). This is true to canon as well, where often we see shuttles evading fire from starships that would typically have enough firepower to destroy them instantly. Simply throwing more hps at fighters doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Their individual firepower should be increased but only around x2 max as their effectiveness is already increased by subsystem targeting and the player controls.
4. Syphons and shield drones should have crazy high defence values also, and be much more effective (2 syphons should bring down a starships power to about a third, so all 4 will bring it down by 2/3s which makes them enough of a threat to be used). The Shield drones repair should be increased proportionally to what it is now (as they seem to be ok atm). Perhaps give the shield drones and syphons a bit more speed as well.
5. The Bops and frigates should have similar defence/shields/hull to player bops, but should also come with some of the abilities such as rapid fire, epts, rsp, hyt. Eventually some level of customisation of their weapons loadout would be awesome as well. They should have a similar cooldown to the fighters to call in new ones as the ai tends to be stupid and the bops will still be fairly easy to knock out (plus there are only 2 of them, not 6)
----
These are some of my ideas and, without knowing what kind of restrictions/difficulties you guys have implementing these features with the current game engine, I understand they may not be practical. I am sure there are business limitations also when only 20% of your subscribers play Klingon (and I really appreciate you are looking to invest in the faction I personally play 90% of the time).
I don't tend to write much on the forums (read a bit though) however I believe this topic is important enough to contribute to and although the klingon population is relatively low, we should really make our voices heard on this topic.
Thanks...
(Oh, and as a side note- please increase PVP rewards!!! (Particularly FvK))
Pet subsystem targeting sounds dangerous. It would probably have to be considerably below the subsystem disable proc of phasers.
Maybe something like a weak, non-stacking "suppressive fire" debuff that causes a damage strength penalty or an accuracy penalty? (Countered by Tactical Team perhaps?).
A disabled subsystem is a very "hard" control effect. One has to be careful with those, they easily lead to more frustration than fun.
At the same time, penalty to stats are felt less harshly usually, but you can afford to have them active most of the time. The attacker can "rely" on the effect, while the defender can still act normally.
Yeah, the aceton + chroniton + tricobalt pet anoying is not enoigh, now lets implement subsystem targeting pets also...and while we are at it, to create a complete nightmare, lets give them fighters SUBNUKE also !
Pretty much EVERYONE runs around with at least 1 copy of beam target subsystem something now, what could possibly go wrong with adding 20+ deployables spamming the ability to the mix?
:eek:
Moreover, the idea here is for the offline proc only - not the power level reduction - which makes it inferior for subsystem debuffing functionality. (In place, of course, the fighters would still be doing their current DPS, though overall this would be less DPS given that the number of wings would be reduced.)
Specifically this: No, the disable proc would be worse. Having a (non-stacking) energy drain within a reasonable value would be far preferrable about having your system be knocked out enitrely.
Disables, Stuns, they are all control powers. MOre specifically, they are control powers in that they remove the player's control over his character (or ship). These can and probably should exist in any game, but they must be handled with great care and using sparingly.
Yeah, the aceton + chroniton + tricobalt pet anoying is not enoigh, now lets implement subsystem targeting pets also...and while we are at it, to create a complete nightmare, lets give them fighters SUBNUKE also !
Yes please add 30 cloaked fighter to take care of the lag problem, and let them fire subnuke while cloaked to make sure carriers become a viable option. Geeez
I'll try to rephrase my question, if it appears a dumb question I'm sorry. I m not playing Champions or any other space MMO and i m at a loss here.
How do the DEVs envision pets and mines in STO season 4 crossfire??
Ever since carriers were released, complaints about spam have been painting the forum walls all over. Instead of dreaming of new pets, and more spam *cough* scorpion, CTM *cough* why not let us in on the thought process of how to resolve the long standing issues. It might not be a sexy as cloaking nuke bombers full of orion slave girls, but a lot more pressing then the state of the Kar'fri imv.
Targeting UI issues and limits on the output of 5 sci cpt. in carriers with 2 mine launchers on auto fire, photonic fleet, fleet support and pets. Can we get a direction here first, before creating new toys? If the old problems persist, how could the new toys even hope to be balanced?
TL: DR: Can we please fix targeting and set reasonable limits to the total amount of spam per map, before creating shiny new things. Please....
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.)
Hrm... I'm just going to have to see this on Tribble before I can honestly comment.
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.
I like this idea. <^_^>b
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.
Interesting idea. Honestly it makes a ton of sense anyway... leaving mines obviously visible is kind of wonky, and Klingon fighters not having cloaks has always been a bit of a headscratcher for me. Still want to see a defense increase though; the cloak's man advantages will be a brief but painful moment of "oh TRIBBLE" combined with not-spamming-the-heck-out-of-the-screen.
However it won't do anything for their survivability once the fight actually starts.
*edit* I apparently misunderstood... not actual cloaking. Hrm... I don't know how much I like that. However for practicality's sake, how about 10km as a range?
That lets anyone involved in a furball target everything else that's actually in range; but keeps things they couldn't shoot/couldn't shoot them from cluttering things up?
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..
Right now, anything is helpful. I'd really prefer it to be by squadron rather than by hangar personally - but even just a general "fighters do this thing" command is better than the present situation.
What if instead of subsystem targeting being by fighter type, it was a selectable command via the control bar? Ex: Attack Weapons, Attack Engines, Attack Auxiliary.
Granted that's potentially very, very powerful combined with the carrier's own subsystem targeting... but I admit the idea has a ton of appeal. I'm also fine if the fighters have no subsystem attacking ability though, it's one of those things that sounds wonderful and flavorful... but the nerf cries of doom that it might cause would be worrisome.
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.
This would be nice.
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.
This I don't like so much. I like fighters because I personally find the idea of a carrier deploying whole frigates kind of wonky. I realize that's a personal thing, but... yeah. That said I'd prefer my fighters retain high DPS capability over subsystem targetting.
One solution however, would be to have one DPS style fighter (fighter-bomber basically, like the present To'Duj), and another more straight-up fighter with subsystem target abilities. The latter maybe equipped with cannons instead of torpedoes or something?
We could flip the idea; instead of each specific type of fighter having a chance to proc a specific subsystem disable, each specific type of fighter having a power train for a specific power type (aux, weapons, engines).
Perhaps having fighters that focus more on energy weapons with secondary torpedo fire, and add bombers that has a focus on torpedoes with energy weapons second.
Then you could also add patrols that act as carrier protection that orbits and is able to detect hostile cloaked ships.
ECM fighters that could cause players to have reduced accuracy and hitting a carrier for less or missing more frequently.
We could flip the idea; instead of each specific type of fighter having a chance to proc a specific subsystem disable, each specific type of fighter having a power train for a specific power type (aux, weapons, engines).
This could work. of course it might require some careful balancing: Stacking them is not good, but if they last as long as Polaron Procs, they might be useless entirely as well. (But maybe numbers can make up for it, e.g. 12 fighters procing drains could be noticeable as a relatively constant energy drain?)
It's definitely better than disables.
One change you could consider is having fighters that simply use different energy types. But that might make phasers - due to their disable proc - highly favored.. Probably pointless until we have actually achieved some balance between all weapon types.
We could flip the idea; instead of each specific type of fighter having a chance to proc a specific subsystem disable, each specific type of fighter having a power train for a specific power type (aux, weapons, engines).
Sounds like your describing the Fighters from the Orion Marauder.
I dunno if that's a good Idea, or not.. but it is interesting.. Although maybe the fighters should just be given either phaser or polaron type weapons.. Then you don't have to give them any kind of special skill.. Maybe even be able to buy fighters equipped with the weapons you want them to have.. Phasers, Disruptors, etc..
Sounds like your describing the Fighters from the Orion Marauder.
I dunno if that's a good Idea, or not.. but it is interesting.. Although maybe the fighters should just be given either phaser or polaron type weapons.. Then you don't have to give them any kind of special skill.. Maybe even be able to buy fighters equipped with the weapons you want them to have.. Phasers, Disruptors, etc..
Hmm, in that case there would be the carrier, the hangars for big and/or small fighters and then there'd be six versions of each individual fighter type, each with a different kind of energy weapon.
Or perhaps worse, six versions per energy weapon and six versions for each torpedo type, meaning 36 versions for all possible combinations.
I'd say there would need to be an easier option for this...once I come up with one I'll let you know.;)
We could flip the idea; instead of each specific type of fighter having a chance to proc a specific subsystem disable, each specific type of fighter having a power train for a specific power type (aux, weapons, engines).
I had a thought in my really long post a few pages back but it didn't gain any traction, though it might still have some potential: Would it be possible to create bridge officer powers that influence the fighters?
For example, having a science power that, on command, orders your fighters/other to fire a tachyon pulse that does X damage to the target's shields; or an eng slot to have the corvettes/BoPs deploy a small stream of warp plasma; or a tactical slot that has the fighters go for a random subsystem?
If it were possible then it could be helpful, or is it something that's just not feasible?
Sounds like your describing the Fighters from the Orion Marauder.
I dunno if that's a good Idea, or not.. but it is interesting.. Although maybe the fighters should just be given either phaser or polaron type weapons.. Then you don't have to give them any kind of special skill.. Maybe even be able to buy fighters equipped with the weapons you want them to have.. Phasers, Disruptors, etc..
We have plans for them as well...
As for equipping different quality levels of fighter differently, that's still a possibility.
I had a thought in my really long post a few pages back but it didn't gain any traction, though it might still have some potential: Would it be possible to create bridge officer powers that influence the fighters?
For example, having a science power that, on command, orders your fighters/other to fire a tachyon pulse that does X damage to the target's shields; or an eng slot to have the corvettes/BoPs deploy a small stream of warp plasma; or a tactical slot that has the fighters go for a random subsystem?
If it were possible then it could be helpful, or is it something that's just not feasible?
While it's possible, at a technical level it's a little messier, and bridge officer powers that affect something only one class of ship can get seems problematic to me (also, bridge officer powers are inherently more expensive to build). Now, there will be some duty officers that can affect some elements of carrier operations, but duty officer abilities are a much lower bar developmentally than bridge officer powers.
Fighter specialization: Grant 5% boost to evasion and 4% boost to weapon speed
Korg graduated at the top of his class due to lightning quick reflexes and a solid engineering background. Korg was initially third in his class, but the pilots in the top two slots proved to be less talented in the dueling pits than they were in the cockpit.
We could flip the idea; instead of each specific type of fighter having a chance to proc a specific subsystem disable, each specific type of fighter having a power train for a specific power type (aux, weapons, engines).
Not sure what you mean by "power train"? I'm thinking it sounds like "would get bonuses based off of this power setting" but I don't want to read too much into it >.>
I was thinking about this the other night and I may have an answer to the fighter question.
How about a Foreign Legion of fighters? The game already has the notion of breen and reman defectors going over to the Fed and KDF sides (thanks to the missions bestowing those bridge officers) and the Orions are already allied with the KDF faction.
A new fighter tablet that you slot in either or both of your hangar bays. Each one launches a flight of three (up to 3 flights per bay, as it is now with To'Duj fighters), consisting of:
The same thing could be done with the larger ships- Reman BoP's, Breen frigates, Orion Corvettes, or even Gorn frigates.
This should be fairly easy to implement, since each of these ships already exists in game. All you'd have to do is make up a new item to slot and code to summon them. It would mix things up a lot and make playing a carrier even more fun than it already is
On a separate (or not so separate) note, would it be possible to introduce a quality component to the launched items? Like making them a crafted or purchased item so KDF chars could buy or craft green, blue, or purple versions?
Not sure what you mean by "power train"? I'm thinking it sounds like "would get bonuses based off of this power setting" but I don't want to read too much into it >.>
Sorry, typo. Power drain. Current Target Subsystem powers attack their target's power levels with a chance to proc a straight subsystem disable. This is suggesting the power level drain part without the proc chance to disable the subsystem part for fighters. Note, this is not suggesting you get any power back, just that it drains the target's power level for one specific subsystem.
On a separate (or not so separate) note, would it be possible to introduce a quality component to the launched items? Like making them a crafted or purchased item so KDF chars could buy or craft green, blue, or purple versions?
We are looking into exactly this, in fact, though the mechanic of acquisition is still being discussed.
I think on an over-all level, the power drain would be preferable from my perspective.* The big reason for this is that disable procs could be either:
A) Unreliable - in which case you're losing DPS for minimal gain.
If reliable, could be immensely frustrating to fight against.
A drain style debuff on the other hand meshes well with Target Subsystems and the Siphon Power debuff.
That said now that I think of it, you'd want to be careful there too... a Carrier is an excellent platform to create a power denial build after all. It'd be a lot of fun to use; I'm a little worried it may be very, very unenjoyable to fight.
Really though the proof will be in the testing.
*I do still favor DPS over debuffing though; at least as one type of fighter.
Comments
Rarity levels would also include improved functionality and/or different functionality. The former is more likely than the latter.
Yes, that is our current thinking.
Shifting bridge officer slotting on the Kar'fi is something that has been discussed, and may still be done if the changes discussed prove inadequate.
We would, however, like to avoid doing this if possible, first because we would like to find a way to make the ship viable while still preserving its unique-ish bridge officer station slotting, and second because shifting around bridge officer slotting is both technically messy and potentially alienates players who were happy with the existing slotting.
Many (maybe even most) of the existing special ship powers would probably remain tied to their ship. Any ability that was transferable would have to be closely looked at for balance and technical feasibility. Our intent is to err on the side of caution in this area.
Clearly, if we were to go down this path it would require the numbers set such that this would not be the case that a carrier could put a target in complete lockdown.
Ideally, it would mean by choosing to have one of the types of fighters - giving up a hanger slot for that - you would essentially get the equivalent of a Target Subsystems power that was on a separate cooldown, but was unreliable in timing and fragile (since fighters can be targeted).
Moreover, the idea here is for the offline proc only - not the power level reduction - which makes it inferior for subsystem debuffing functionality. (In place, of course, the fighters would still be doing their current DPS, though overall this would be less DPS given that the number of wings would be reduced.)
HOWEVER, I also think there should be ship universal power consoles.
My big preference would be, give every ship a Universal Console Slot.
You can pick the console of your choice to go in there, including power consoles.
Some power consoles are restricted to ships. Power consoles that come with ships are restricted to those ships, with rare exception. Power consoles MUST go in the Universal slot.
Crafted power consoles work on ANY ship. These still have to go in the universal slot. I would suggest including some options BASED on the specialty ships. For example, a crafted console that gives people the Excelsior-style transwarp and boosts speed and turnrate. (If it has NO combat function, it doesn't belong on a console. But a non-combat power plus stats might be okay.)
You have the option NOT to use a power console and use the universal slot for Sci/Tactical/Engineering consoles.
I think it would be a CLEARER design choice if devices were fairly standard consumables and powers were all handled as consoles, particularly if every ship has a slot for one power.
So the Scorpion Fighter becomes a power console. The Red Matter Capacitor becomes a power console. If that means bumping up their effectiveness, do it. But I think it makes balance and clarity of what things do a lot easier to convey.
One question, could these 'carrier AI commands' be expanded to work for other 'pet creating' abilities, such as Photonic Fleet, the MVAM console's 2 pets, the Galaxy-R's saucer, and the D'Kyr's support shuttle. Heck even Fleet Support and of course the Scorpion Fighters could use the benefit of such commands and everyone can use those two sources to create pets.
Naturally 'all pets' would get the same command no matter the source for the pets, so if a Carrier cranks out whatever is in its hangars and then pops out Scorpion fighters all the pets would get controlled by the same commands. Please consider that Carriers aren't the only ships that could benefit from such 'pet AI commands' being added so if anything that should hopefully bump up the priority to get such pet AI commands added to the game. If anything that might make getting these commands for carriers done a bit faster/better if it is realized they can be used for far more than just carrier pets. Which could also work towards allowing more flexibility in what Carriers can have as pets due to more types of pets being able to work with the AI. One option is for different pets to interpret the same command differently some pets may interpret a follow the command to 'follow an ally'/'escort an ally' and interpret it as stay near that ally and focus on whatever that ally is targeting, other pets could interpret the same command as support that ally with abilities while other pets could interpret that same command as stay near this ally and target anything that attacks that ally, which may or may not be the target's ally. Simply hide the pet AI command skills from appearing in the power list unless the character has some way of generating pets either due to a skill, item, or component aspect of their ship at which point in time they can be added to the tray bar as any other power can be added.
never make /damage/stun) mines invisible under any circumstances.
They can seriously TRIBBLE players so they need to be visible.
fighters shall have their temporary cloack for all i care - they aren't instant TRIBBLE.
I'm a little curious. I can understand phase shift being unbalancing on other classes of ships but how would it be unbalancing on other carriers? The Kar'Fi and the Vo'quv operate on the same principles, right? Or is there something I'm missing?
But perception/stealth sight buffs (including Sensor Scan, Tachyon Detection Grid and Science innate sensor bonus) should definitely help to increase this (but 10-12 km as "outer" range might be fine.)
1: I Guess I could live with that.. And if it were a universal console, it might help, though the only slot left, after taking the Borg console into consideration, would be the Tactical slot, because the Sci and Engi slots are such prime requirements to the Ships functionality.
2: I'm all for it. Makes me wonder about ships like the Garumba and the Galaxy X though. Since both ships have not only 1 Specific ability, but 2 or 3. The Galaxy X has it's Spinal Lance, and Cloak while the Garumba has it's Seige Mode, Disruptor Lance, and a Weapon Power Siphon tied to it's Seige Mode.
3: I'm all for this. And adding a higher defense rating to Smaller ships makes absolute sense.
4: I'd love to see commands like: Attack/Defend (If targeting an Ally, the pets will defend that target until a new target is selected and commanded other wise. If Targeting a Foe, the pets will attack that foe until commanded otherwise.) Return (The Pets will return to the Carrier and De-Spawn) Follow (The Pets will Stop defending or attacking any targets and return to you, then will defend you)
Also, if/when you add another Hanger Slot to the Kar'fi, I'd love to see perhaps 2 new Kar'fi restricted Pets created. Perhaps something similar to the Shield Recovery Drones the Vor'quv has, except they are more of a Buff type pet. Perhaps something that helps to power up your Weapons and increases your Damage with Energy Weapons as long as they are out (or who you place them on) And maybe a Scout/Mine sweeper Pet that can be used for Destroying Mines/FAW 1 or perhaps can "Confuse" the Mines so that they work for you temporarly by scrambling their targeting Systems. Just a thought.
Pet commands ftw definitely.
Kar'fii definitely needs more pet options, would make it a more viable option, especially if they were of a similar type to those you suggested.+2
Pet commands ftw definitely.
Kar'fii definitely needs more pet options, would make it a more viable option, especially if they were of a similar type to those you suggested.+2
Controls:
As someone who regularly uses the Vo'Quv carrier (have also used the kar'fi a fair bit also), I have been hoping for the implementation of a smart pet control scheme since early last year and am really glad it is now on the horizon. Heretic, you said at the start of this thread:
"Controls
This is being looked into. This is, unfortunately, a very meaty problem that is going to be expensive to address; user interface changes are not cheap. That being said, we are seeing if there are some things we can do to ease things a bit in the mid-term."
Given that it is a meaty problem that is expensive to address, I really believe you should start off simple. There are 3 basic commands that I believe should be implemented for all attacking pets and need to be somewhat compatible with Non-Attacking Pets (NAP: shield drones, repair drones):
1. Attack my target (or heal my target for a NAP)- remains persistent until new command issued or target destroyed. Once target destroyed, pets will return to carrier for new instructions (NAPS will heal carrier by default)
2. Defend my target (For NAPs this will have the same function as attack, however if the mechanics of doing that are too difficult then some sort of timer should be applied to prevent its use (and non-usability needs to be visually apparent))
3. Return to carrier
If 2 is much too difficult to implement, then 1 and 3 would still be a huge improvement over what we currently have. It would also be preferable if the controls applied to each hanger, otherwise there may be context issues if someone uses, for example, a shield drone in one hanger and a Bop in another.
I believe these three basic commands would make pets so much more combat effective that you would want to be careful about the other changes you make. I also believe that you don't really want too many more than 3 because:
* you said yourself implementation is expensive (so don't make it more complex than it needs to be)
* simplicity is really good in the heat of battle, and the controls attack/defend/return are intuitive and easy for people to pick up
* I would imagine it might be easier to start small and build up depending on community response, than to add a whole lot and have problems with bugs, and possible negative community responses.
Subsystem Targetting:
As for subsystem targeting, I can already imagine some of the things that might be said by regular fed players in the forums if this is done incorrectly. Combined with the amount of subsystem targeting that is already available to carriers... are you sure you want to add more? How many specific counters would another player have to have to survive a sci captain in a carrier which now has fighters that target subsystems? 4? 5? 6? How much would be too much? It would be fun to have fighters with subsystem targeting, but the 'unfun' of the opposing player(s) might far exceed that measure.
If you really want it, then I suggest the following:
1. Control interface should still be simple- perhaps along with the controls mentioned above you can have a 'target subsystem mode' bar with four settings (weapon/shield/engine/aux) which sits under each respective pet control bar. The player selects the 'mode' thus selecting what subsytem they want their fighters to shoot at. It will stay in that mode until the player selects otherwise. There is a 2 second window every 15 seconds for the mode to be changed once the fighters are launched (to prevent abuse)
2. Once the fighters are attacking the target, they get say 1 subsystem attack every 15 seconds, and there is a % chance that the attack is successful (say 50% guaranteed). Using this ruleset, you now have:
- something that is easy to adjust based on community response
- is fun for the player where they might get a 'fight-changing' subsystem disable
- but is not too overpowered where the player has limited control over the ability (so it is not easy to chain with other abilities of a similar nature)
- and the opposing player can choose to take out the fighters to avoid another possible hit in 15 seconds (which adds to the depth of strategy at play)
Spam reduction:
Whilst I have never had too much of an issue with spam on either side, I do agree that without a more intelligent targeting model, the spam can be more abusive than tactical- and particularly when it slows down other peoples frame rate (thus advantaging the wealthier gamers with newer rigs- and yes I am one of them).
To be honest I would be happy with something like a max of 4 fighters/shield drones/syphons (2 for each hangar) and 2 Bops/frigates (1 for each hangar). Obviously they would need to be buffed for this to work, but not too extremely:
1. Call in any time, and are persistent (don't fade away)
2. If ordered to return to carrier (see above) then perhaps they can dock and get a repair or are instantly repaired with a very short (say 5 second) delay before they can exit and fight again. The delay in this case would be needed to prevent abuse, but should not be too long to make its usage too costly in battle.
3. Fighters should have very very high defence ratings as a survivability buff (perhaps as much as a 15-25% chance to be hit (regardless of all possible accuracy buffs the enemy ship may have). This is true to canon as well, where often we see shuttles evading fire from starships that would typically have enough firepower to destroy them instantly. Simply throwing more hps at fighters doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Their individual firepower should be increased but only around x2 max as their effectiveness is already increased by subsystem targeting and the player controls.
4. Syphons and shield drones should have crazy high defence values also, and be much more effective (2 syphons should bring down a starships power to about a third, so all 4 will bring it down by 2/3s which makes them enough of a threat to be used). The Shield drones repair should be increased proportionally to what it is now (as they seem to be ok atm). Perhaps give the shield drones and syphons a bit more speed as well.
5. The Bops and frigates should have similar defence/shields/hull to player bops, but should also come with some of the abilities such as rapid fire, epts, rsp, hyt. Eventually some level of customisation of their weapons loadout would be awesome as well. They should have a similar cooldown to the fighters to call in new ones as the ai tends to be stupid and the bops will still be fairly easy to knock out (plus there are only 2 of them, not 6)
----
These are some of my ideas and, without knowing what kind of restrictions/difficulties you guys have implementing these features with the current game engine, I understand they may not be practical. I am sure there are business limitations also when only 20% of your subscribers play Klingon (and I really appreciate you are looking to invest in the faction I personally play 90% of the time).
I don't tend to write much on the forums (read a bit though) however I believe this topic is important enough to contribute to and although the klingon population is relatively low, we should really make our voices heard on this topic.
Thanks...
(Oh, and as a side note- please increase PVP rewards!!! (Particularly FvK))
Maybe something like a weak, non-stacking "suppressive fire" debuff that causes a damage strength penalty or an accuracy penalty? (Countered by Tactical Team perhaps?).
A disabled subsystem is a very "hard" control effect. One has to be careful with those, they easily lead to more frustration than fun.
At the same time, penalty to stats are felt less harshly usually, but you can afford to have them active most of the time. The attacker can "rely" on the effect, while the defender can still act normally.
:eek:
Disables, Stuns, they are all control powers. MOre specifically, they are control powers in that they remove the player's control over his character (or ship). These can and probably should exist in any game, but they must be handled with great care and using sparingly.
Yes please add 30 cloaked fighter to take care of the lag problem, and let them fire subnuke while cloaked to make sure carriers become a viable option. Geeez
I'll try to rephrase my question, if it appears a dumb question I'm sorry. I m not playing Champions or any other space MMO and i m at a loss here.
How do the DEVs envision pets and mines in STO season 4 crossfire??
Ever since carriers were released, complaints about spam have been painting the forum walls all over. Instead of dreaming of new pets, and more spam *cough* scorpion, CTM *cough* why not let us in on the thought process of how to resolve the long standing issues. It might not be a sexy as cloaking nuke bombers full of orion slave girls, but a lot more pressing then the state of the Kar'fri imv.
Targeting UI issues and limits on the output of 5 sci cpt. in carriers with 2 mine launchers on auto fire, photonic fleet, fleet support and pets. Can we get a direction here first, before creating new toys? If the old problems persist, how could the new toys even hope to be balanced?
TL: DR: Can we please fix targeting and set reasonable limits to the total amount of spam per map, before creating shiny new things. Please....
Hrm... I'm just going to have to see this on Tribble before I can honestly comment.
I like this idea. <^_^>b
Interesting idea. Honestly it makes a ton of sense anyway... leaving mines obviously visible is kind of wonky, and Klingon fighters not having cloaks has always been a bit of a headscratcher for me. Still want to see a defense increase though; the cloak's man advantages will be a brief but painful moment of "oh TRIBBLE" combined with not-spamming-the-heck-out-of-the-screen.
However it won't do anything for their survivability once the fight actually starts.
*edit* I apparently misunderstood... not actual cloaking. Hrm... I don't know how much I like that. However for practicality's sake, how about 10km as a range?
That lets anyone involved in a furball target everything else that's actually in range; but keeps things they couldn't shoot/couldn't shoot them from cluttering things up?
Right now, anything is helpful. I'd really prefer it to be by squadron rather than by hangar personally - but even just a general "fighters do this thing" command is better than the present situation.
What if instead of subsystem targeting being by fighter type, it was a selectable command via the control bar? Ex: Attack Weapons, Attack Engines, Attack Auxiliary.
Granted that's potentially very, very powerful combined with the carrier's own subsystem targeting... but I admit the idea has a ton of appeal. I'm also fine if the fighters have no subsystem attacking ability though, it's one of those things that sounds wonderful and flavorful... but the nerf cries of doom that it might cause would be worrisome.
*will respond to later posts in turn*
This would be nice.
This I don't like so much. I like fighters because I personally find the idea of a carrier deploying whole frigates kind of wonky. I realize that's a personal thing, but... yeah. That said I'd prefer my fighters retain high DPS capability over subsystem targetting.
One solution however, would be to have one DPS style fighter (fighter-bomber basically, like the present To'Duj), and another more straight-up fighter with subsystem target abilities. The latter maybe equipped with cannons instead of torpedoes or something?
Just a thought.
We could flip the idea; instead of each specific type of fighter having a chance to proc a specific subsystem disable, each specific type of fighter having a power train for a specific power type (aux, weapons, engines).
Then you could also add patrols that act as carrier protection that orbits and is able to detect hostile cloaked ships.
ECM fighters that could cause players to have reduced accuracy and hitting a carrier for less or missing more frequently.
This could work. of course it might require some careful balancing: Stacking them is not good, but if they last as long as Polaron Procs, they might be useless entirely as well. (But maybe numbers can make up for it, e.g. 12 fighters procing drains could be noticeable as a relatively constant energy drain?)
It's definitely better than disables.
One change you could consider is having fighters that simply use different energy types. But that might make phasers - due to their disable proc - highly favored.. Probably pointless until we have actually achieved some balance between all weapon types.
Sounds like your describing the Fighters from the Orion Marauder.
I dunno if that's a good Idea, or not.. but it is interesting.. Although maybe the fighters should just be given either phaser or polaron type weapons.. Then you don't have to give them any kind of special skill.. Maybe even be able to buy fighters equipped with the weapons you want them to have.. Phasers, Disruptors, etc..
Hmm, in that case there would be the carrier, the hangars for big and/or small fighters and then there'd be six versions of each individual fighter type, each with a different kind of energy weapon.
Or perhaps worse, six versions per energy weapon and six versions for each torpedo type, meaning 36 versions for all possible combinations.
I'd say there would need to be an easier option for this...once I come up with one I'll let you know.;)
I had a thought in my really long post a few pages back but it didn't gain any traction, though it might still have some potential: Would it be possible to create bridge officer powers that influence the fighters?
For example, having a science power that, on command, orders your fighters/other to fire a tachyon pulse that does X damage to the target's shields; or an eng slot to have the corvettes/BoPs deploy a small stream of warp plasma; or a tactical slot that has the fighters go for a random subsystem?
If it were possible then it could be helpful, or is it something that's just not feasible?
We have plans for them as well...
As for equipping different quality levels of fighter differently, that's still a possibility.
While it's possible, at a technical level it's a little messier, and bridge officer powers that affect something only one class of ship can get seems problematic to me (also, bridge officer powers are inherently more expensive to build). Now, there will be some duty officers that can affect some elements of carrier operations, but duty officer abilities are a much lower bar developmentally than bridge officer powers.
Korg Thi'taka
Fighter specialization: Grant 5% boost to evasion and 4% boost to weapon speed
Korg graduated at the top of his class due to lightning quick reflexes and a solid engineering background. Korg was initially third in his class, but the pilots in the top two slots proved to be less talented in the dueling pits than they were in the cockpit.
Not sure what you mean by "power train"? I'm thinking it sounds like "would get bonuses based off of this power setting" but I don't want to read too much into it >.>
How about a Foreign Legion of fighters? The game already has the notion of breen and reman defectors going over to the Fed and KDF sides (thanks to the missions bestowing those bridge officers) and the Orions are already allied with the KDF faction.
A new fighter tablet that you slot in either or both of your hangar bays. Each one launches a flight of three (up to 3 flights per bay, as it is now with To'Duj fighters), consisting of:
1 Breen B'leth Chaos fighter
1 Scorpion fighter
1 Orion Interceptor
The same thing could be done with the larger ships- Reman BoP's, Breen frigates, Orion Corvettes, or even Gorn frigates.
This should be fairly easy to implement, since each of these ships already exists in game. All you'd have to do is make up a new item to slot and code to summon them. It would mix things up a lot and make playing a carrier even more fun than it already is
On a separate (or not so separate) note, would it be possible to introduce a quality component to the launched items? Like making them a crafted or purchased item so KDF chars could buy or craft green, blue, or purple versions?
Sorry, typo. Power drain. Current Target Subsystem powers attack their target's power levels with a chance to proc a straight subsystem disable. This is suggesting the power level drain part without the proc chance to disable the subsystem part for fighters. Note, this is not suggesting you get any power back, just that it drains the target's power level for one specific subsystem.
We are looking into exactly this, in fact, though the mechanic of acquisition is still being discussed.
A) Unreliable - in which case you're losing DPS for minimal gain.
A drain style debuff on the other hand meshes well with Target Subsystems and the Siphon Power debuff.
That said now that I think of it, you'd want to be careful there too... a Carrier is an excellent platform to create a power denial build after all. It'd be a lot of fun to use; I'm a little worried it may be very, very unenjoyable to fight.
Really though the proof will be in the testing.
*I do still favor DPS over debuffing though; at least as one type of fighter.