test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Faction Versatility?
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I make this post without expecting a whole lot in the form of intelligent or relevant replies, and when this thread fades into oblivion without such a response, I will smile a little. But maybe I'll be proven wrong, lets find out.
The consensus on the forums has been, at least in a broad nonspecific sense, that this game needs two distinct factions. Not just distinct in the "WoW" mold where the differences are cosmetic and lore related but where each player can find access to every class and playstyle in both factions. No, the consensus here has been that we need both factions to have exclusive ship classifications and unique play styles.
Now, on the Klingon side we all know what ships you want to remain exclusive. No need to fill this thread with the usual "no fedcarriers" or even "no fedbops" arguments. There are many many MANY threads where you can voice those opinions on the Federation shipyard forum. What I want is an intelligent, introspective look at the other side of the equation. We know you, as proud Klingon players, do not want the Federation to have what we have. So, what does the Federation have that you don't want?
TLDR: So, what does the Federation have or what can the Federation be given that you don't want?
The consensus on the forums has been, at least in a broad nonspecific sense, that this game needs two distinct factions. Not just distinct in the "WoW" mold where the differences are cosmetic and lore related but where each player can find access to every class and playstyle in both factions. No, the consensus here has been that we need both factions to have exclusive ship classifications and unique play styles.
Now, on the Klingon side we all know what ships you want to remain exclusive. No need to fill this thread with the usual "no fedcarriers" or even "no fedbops" arguments. There are many many MANY threads where you can voice those opinions on the Federation shipyard forum. What I want is an intelligent, introspective look at the other side of the equation. We know you, as proud Klingon players, do not want the Federation to have what we have. So, what does the Federation have that you don't want?
TLDR: So, what does the Federation have or what can the Federation be given that you don't want?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
They are welcome to all their inter specie 'relationships' and the results of those.
The main thing is if they get new technology, we should have a means of being able to counter or defend against it. In most MMO's which have different factions one always has an advantage which is offset by their opponents, ie you have stronger weapons and your opponents get better armour.
But really we would just like to have something every now and then which is useful.
But to be honest, I'm a bit confused about your question: Are you asking for options to develop the Federation side further? In the Klingon forum? Forgive me, but the question, its context, and the tone of your post in general do not seem exactly geared towards encouraging calm and reasoned debate... Would you be willing to restate your question in another way?
I apologize, I will rephrase my question. People, mostly on the Federation Shipyard board and usually in response to FedCarrier requests, present "Faction Diversity" as a reason for disallowing FedCarriers. In essence they say that the game would suffer in some way if both factions had the same types of ships.
So I'm asking the opposite question. People want Carriers and Birds of Prey to be exclusive to the Klingon faction for the good of the game. So, what do you want in the game to be exclusive to the Federation faction for the good of the game?
And no, cosmetic outfits are not a serious response.
Feds already have an anti-cloak ship, and a battleship concept could complement it really well.
If this were pre-launch, I'd also suggest that Escorts be exclusive to the Feds, let Raptors be re-skins for battlecruisers, and give slight boosts to BoP defense and BC turn rates to compensate for the gap. But that can't happen now of course.
For me, it's about establishing different ship design philosophies. The KDF would be about primary assault, hence BoPs and Carriers, whereas SF would design reactively to survive assault strategies, with Escorts having the job of protecting larger, slower ships from faster, more maneuverable raiders.
If that's all you read, you missed more than half of Dirlettia's post.
What I mentioned when we first discussed the Fed carrier thing:
The anti-carrier.
Back then you said you did not like it without even looking at the stats...
Anyway here's the thread:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=199398
@Kolikos,mister_dee So, one ship? A cruiser designed around the concept of countering an unpopular ship choice in a minority faction? That is all it takes to give the Federation a 'unique feel' completely separate from the KDF? We can discuss how to make it a viable game idea later, but first I want to make sure this is your answer.
@Kolikos individually She also mentioned inter-species relationship, a roleplaying based nonresponse. Finally she mentioned that whatever new tech Starfleet received the KDF should have a counter for, which is fair enough since that's just good game design. It was not the information I asked for. Like I said, not a serious response. I take some of the blame for that, clearly my writing was unclear and I'd be happy to see a serious response from her add to the discussion.
@BobO369 Thank you. Your idea is measured, generous and provides the Federation with a playstyle wholly their own. I would be remiss if I didn't atleast point out that apparently competitive PVP on the KDF side suffers for lack of viable sci-heal vessels so you may find many disagree with you.
I have all those ships, only the Guramba interest me and it's all because of the cosmetics, it just looks so cool, but in the long run, the Heavy Raptor is still superior, IMOHPO.
I didn't post what I wanted, I posted what I'd be willing never to ask for.
While I'd love to see some more Klingon ships to have more of a choice, I don't feel I want one "just like TRIBBLE Fed ship".
I'm sorry you're right. My answer probably seemed curt, possibly bordering on rude. I will temper my responses in the future and would just like to say, that I really am interested in your answer in particular.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm asking but on the off chance that I do let me make sure. There are currently 7 end game ships in Starfleet that have Bridge Officer layouts that are not duplicated on the Klingon side. One is the simple Advanced Escort which has a set up near identical to the Guramba excepting a different choice on the Ensign, 4 are science vessels, 2 standard, 2 hybrid, and the other 2 are a cruiser hybrid, the Excelsior-R, and an escort hybrid, the MVAE.
Are you saying that you'd be willing to have the KDF forego any of these 7 bridge officer layouts in the future, for the sake of maintaining faction diversity? It doesn't leave alot of room for some more Klingon ships.
No worries, I'm probably borderline rude myself ATM...at least I feel that way because I've got to keep my answers rather short due to lack of time.
I'll get back to this thread in two or three days, hopefully with more time and I hope some new (new old? old new?) ideas.
Some that admittedly don't fit the thread 100% yet can be used to get some ideas what could be added to both factions if done right is here
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=3538357&postcount=45
and there's also actualy an idea in there that can be used to make the two faction less similar: give the two sides different Attack Patterns.
I don't see the Klingons using "Pattern Alpha", more like "Pattern Gorkon" or "Pattern Kahless".:)
You are trying to back us into a corner and give the faction who get everything something else. Perhaps if you reversed the question and told us what you wouldn't mind us getting that the feds didn't get then that would be less biased.
As far as an anti fighter ship, most beamboats with BFAW and the tactical console from the deluxe edition deal with pretty much anything a carrier kicks out so why worry about fighters by having a ship dedicated to taking out carriers?
Fair? Well, I suppose that's for the gods to decide. But if you're looking for a guide post to what I'm looking for it should finish this sentence, "We are Klingons, not humans, so we would never _____ ." Or, "We are the KDF, not Starfleet, so we would never make a ship that _____."
No, I'm trying to get a feel for how many people really mean it when they say the factions should be different, and how many just use it as a convenient point when arguing against something they don't like. I have no allusions that this post will lead to the Federation being given anything.
If, however, you find that the only thing you can agree the Federation should have and the Klingons shouldn't is a ship that can be replaced by Any Beamboat, I would also hope that some would reconsider their reasons for disagreeing with a Federation carrier.
Yeah, the 'anti-carrier' aspect would have to be ancillary. Very ancillary as this ability would be even less useful than the Tachyon Grid we see Nebula's use. Something like the Akira-R that people keep recommending, with a built in wide angle torpedo spread. Or a particularly big ship with heap loads of survivability like the Voqov used to be. One that could fill a tanking/support role while feeling distinct from cruisers.
Yep Im 100% sure I do not want anything you have except for your playerbase and it sounds like to me you want a carrier? Well I can slove both are troubles in one easy step make a klingon....you see what I did there?You are happy I am happy now everyone is happy.
You assume alot, but that's fine. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Krueg.
There are currently 7 end game ships in Starfleet that have Bridge Officer layouts that are not duplicated on the Klingon side. One is the simple Advanced Escort which has a set up near identical to the Guramba excepting a different choice on the Ensign, 4 are science vessels, 2 standard, 2 hybrid, and the other 2 are a cruiser hybrid, the Excelsior-R, and an escort hybrid, the MVAE. But for you lets up the ante. They've also said they intend to add an Ambassador Class Cruiser and an Andorian escort, and the popular assumption is that these ships will have hybrid layouts not seen on either side too. So, lets include them and up it to 9 ships in the Federation you're now saying you don't want.
Are you saying that you'd happily forego Klingon ships with these 9 matching bridge officer layouts for the sake of faction diversity? Knowing that it would leave very few, if any, end game viable officer layouts left for future Klingon ships?
Yep I am 100% happy I run a BoP there is no set up I can not make myself why would I want to be forced into some roll when I can make my own on the fly?
Make a klingon get in the carrier and enjoy your game plz
I have a Lieutenant General, I fly a Guramba, I enjoy it quite a lot though I sometimes worry that I've given up too much to try to make my disruptor javeling viable. Thank you for your answer.
Do you always keep asking in different ways until you get the answer you wanted hear?
You originally asked:
With almost every answer you have changed the parameters of the question, but you didn't ask originally about specifics like bridge officer set ups, ships, costumes, species or anything else.
You have been given a variety of things that Feds have that Klingons are content to live without.
There's your answer....
Further debate is not needed.
No, I keep asking in different ways until I get an answer that's detailed and worth consideration.
That's true I didn't. I asked you to volunteer something and you said
Now, I could have just assumed you meant skins for ships, as it is starting to seem, or I could have just assumed you meant every part of the current Federation ship, from the bridge officer layout, down to the special abilities, but I assumed neither. I asked.
No, that would be their answer, not my answer. But see, what I want is YOUR answer. So ignore what everyone else has said, don't let them cloud your thoughts one second. What I want from you right now, and don't worry, we're not debating in the least, is for you to explain the parameters of your statement "They can keep all of the ships they have,"
I'd perfer for them to have small Raptor/destroyer-based scoutships.
As others have pointed out the Varanus encroaches on the typical (smaller/light)cruiser-based science ships the Feds have.
Even though I'm not a fan of carriers I have however a radical proposal to "give the Feds their Science ships back" so to speak.
Turn the Varanus into a Battlecarrier.
Use the Kar'fi stats as a basis, reverse the red (tactical) and yellow (engineering) BO and console slots, give it the ability to launch Gorn NPC fighters and Vishop frigates and the Feds can have their monopoly on cruiser-derived science vessels back.
As a counter to them that fits the KDF better (IMO) use the Raptor-derived scouts I've bugged you folks so much with.
For the record, you have sold me on this idea. I'm not sure it'll ever happen, but I do want to see this idea in the game. And, many years from now, when we're all living in cities in Glitter Band orbiting the earth, when we're all playing via direct neural interface, and when they finally add the Romulan faction to the game, I will so be shamelessly asking for both flavors of science vessels. Yes, we must have all intelligence gathering ships no matter what.
But your idea for giving the Federation one niche that's truly theirs while satisfying the KDF mob with a third unique play option may not be the 'fedcarrier ending compromise' I was hoping to find.
Well, there'll always be one saying "when they built one, we'd build one too" so that debate will never end
(nor will I stop wondering whether those folks would need a reality check because "we" and "them" applies
to fictional sides...)
Anyway when you add the "anti-carrier" as the 4th option, being neither conventional cruiser nor conventional science ship you end up with 4 types of ships on both sides assuming you count the BoP as being in all categories at the same time (except the carrier).
Your ulterior motive for setting up this inquiry aside, is that not the real intention of the Fed carrier nay sayers? Not so much that you cannot have a carrier, (Scorpion fighters launched off a MVAM should satisfy this role), but that some degree of diversity be maintained between the factions.
This diversity should not only be visual, like the First City update, but also be mechanical. Fed ships tend to be more specialized to begin with, a real advantage when a team actually coordinates their builds. mister_dee's idea may give another ship class to the KDF but it falls within the combat philosophy of the KDF. One of strike fast strike and hard. Using fast support to back up the strike fits that notion. How will one or two small fast support ships upset the armada of available, specialized, ships the Feds currently enjoys?
You make a sound appeal to reason, but for the greater glory of Romulus I'm afraid you must be wrong.
Yeah, see I'm still not sold on the "anti-carrier" but I can see how it could be made game viable against normal ships so it, splitting the baby of science vessels and the large number of hybrid build ships exclusive to Starfleet making the BoP into little more than a Battle Cloaking version of many bigger ships would balance the scales.
My ulterior motive for asking this question and starting this discussion is to find out exactly that. Is the real intention of Fed carrier nay sayers to maintain some degree of diversity between the factions and does that intention extend to believing there are some play styles, some vessel types, some real mechanical differences that should remain exclusively available to the Federation?
Um, well let's see...I guess I thought the statement was self-explanitory
They... being the Federation
can keep....meaning to continue to have in their possesion
all of the ships....meaning every single current Federation starship in STO (keyword: all)
they have...they being the Federation still
read into it however you want, have fun....
*walks away*
Now, I suppose it's only fair I give an answer to my own question. I figure the ship has already sailed on Science Vessels and Cryptic just doesn't have the resources to institute any entirely new classifications of ships, whether they be Anti-Carrier Battleships or Klingon scouts. I also don't think it's fair to ask the Klingon faction to never accept a new ship of the three core classes. So let the Klingons have science vessels, there's atleast another standard escort layout and if Cryptic happens to make a Tier-5 KDF science vessel with an engineering Ensign and it just so happens to be a Nausicaan Sypon Destroyer I'd even be happy to see them.
Hybrids amount to six bridge officer layouts, all of of which can be closely duplicated by Birds of Prey but only 2 of which seem to be duplicated as an optimal choice for that light ship. Now I know, carriers have hybrid setups aswell, that's okay, it's the nature of the beast and their size and turn radius plus weapons loadouts make them significantly different even if half of them have the sci/tac arrangement that people keep bandying about as fun for the Nova-R.
Why do I think this is a good idea? Well, I can give a longwinded canon justification for it but I think canon reasons are a waste of time. Blasphemy I know. Here's why I like it, externally it's bland, my suggestion to keep the Federation unique is to keep giving them more versions of ships they already have but when you get into the nuts and bolts you realize the Sci-Cruiser and the Tac-Cruiser are very different ships. It doesn't force Starfleet to do anything we don't see in the show so it shouldn't mess with anyone's immersion or enjoyment of the pure Trek aspects.
Why do I think this is enough? Well, it's 6 bridge officer arrangements that can be tacked onto iconic ships that will make a Fed Captain feel like a Fed Captain. That it's less flashy than a Carrier or Battlecloak is not so important, the Federation IS Star Trek after all and if someone is interested in this game there's better than even odds they're already interested in joining Starfleet.
Why isn't this idea too much? Well, it is 6 bridge officer arrangements and the carriers/birds of prey make up a total of 4 ships. 5 if we manage to get Cryptic to take on mister_dee's Klink scout concept. It doesn't forbid the introduction of another Bird of Prey or another carrier, though I'm not sure what they would do with a third BoP or a fourth carrier. But we can acknowledge that even a hybrid escort is not as different a play experience as the Heghta and call the 1-2 ship difference even, right?
Now, obviously Tier-6 ships could shoot all kinds of holes into this and we may need to revisit the idea later but until such time as the current situation changes I would be happy with this. So, barring some change that requires this game go to a more efficient model, or barring the introduction of another type or group of KDF ships that appear to infringe upon this one last area of Federation uniqueness, I'm dropping the Fedcarrier and even the FedBoP thing.
It is far more than just BOff slots that make a ship. You can't give a Galaxy the slots of a Defiant refit and expect it to do well. A ship is the sum of every aspect. It is why the Excelsior is arguably unbalanced, it has extra abilities in the form of a superior turn rate (and the not overly important transwarp) to other Fed cruisers, and doesn't pay for it. It is why the Kar'Fi is a bit underwhelming, a tac heavy ship with the turn rate of a cruiser.
That isn't to say balance is perfect or anything, but to narrow the focus to BOff slots is absolutely wrong. The uniqueness of ships goes beyond their BOFF slots, and includes all of their various stats like hull, shields, turn rate, and any specials they have. I don't think I've ever seen any KDF calling for MVAM BOPs or ablative armor generators on a carrier or saucer separation for a battlecruiser. Those are features that make Fed ships unique, something the KDF doesn't have, doesn't need, and by and large, doesn't want. The KDF, by comparison has cloaks, one ship with universal slots, and one and a half carriers, among other things.
However I think without a doubt that part of the argument against giving Feds KDF features is also the lack of content the KDF suffers. The thing is, if some Fed player wants to play a carrier, they can! They just roll up a KDF and level up to BG.
Why don't they? It's a real pain isn't it? Well if you can't suffer leveling on the KDF side, why should you get the KDF toys?
There already is uniqueness on both sides, and if you want it all, then you play both sides.