It's rare that I see KDF flying anything other than BOPs or Carriers. Feds will never have BOPs. Sure, one of my guys flies a Bortas - but I'm not fond of the BOP playstyle.
As previously noted though, the Feds may get the Caitian Carrier - much like the KDF get their Sci vessels from the Gorn. Heck, in thinking about the KDF types - even five may not be correct if you add in the Nausicaan Destroyers (giving the KDF a 6th type).
In looking at the compendium STOwiki has, the coming months will offer:
Odyssey and Bortas +1 (both possibly having aux craft).
Another T5 Escort.
T5 Raptor and Negh'var.
Ambassador class heavy cruiser.
Vesta class...which per M-B appears to be a carrier.
Caitian carrier.
New Orleans frigate/Light Cruiser.
Freedom class...er, Lt Cruiser?
Niagara class..."fast" cruiser.
Then you get into Season Six things like the Jupiter, Typhoon, and the possibility of T6 ships.
1x Danube class runabout
1x New Atlantic class runabout (cpt. yacht version)
4x Type 11 Shuttle
2x Type 9 shuttle
6x Workbee
2x Sphinx
The reason you see so many KDF flying those two exclusive craft types is that they're optimal for PVP and PVE.
BoP's are basically escorts that are slightly squishier but have cloaking capabilities, higher maneuverability then other escort types, and some nasty DPS. The closest mirror the Feds have to them is the Defiant retrofit, which has similar hull, I believe. Carriers have cruiser-like stats and let you hit multiple targets at once not counting skills like FAW, or burn something down really fast while using them as a defensive cover.
Both of these ship types are great for quickly doing content in the end-game, leveling, and especially PVP. The nature of STO's space combat for most of the game means that he who does the most damage is going to be the one who wins a given fight nine times out of ten. Utility is often an accessory to killing stuff, not an acceptable route to go if a player is intelligent. This is why a well played DPS geared escort with Rapid Fire and Torp Volley stacked on its console slots several times can take on a Cube 1V1 and win in an elite, while a cruiser can't. Add onto that the ability to cloak and give the ship more turn rate/speed and you give someone first strike capability and the ability to disengage at will to heal up.
If there were skills that were actually geared towards tanking (Sci has the most of them, it seems. Things like Feedback Pulse are an effective way of trying to reverse some of the damage cannons can spew out by the thousands.) as a primary role, you'd see a change in this dynamic.
As it is now "Threat Control" is only recently a thing, and doesn't actively play a role in how you design your ship. Rather, it's a skill you can put points into, and the skills you get don't really effect your threat outside of DPS. Which is also why end-game geared escorts will easily yank threat off of a cruiser if they know what they're doing.
When you're playing the most effective ship class in terms of overall potential, there's really not much reason to actually fly anything else.
Edit: If broadening KDF exclusive features is going to kill the KDF population, then maybe the problem isn't the non-exclusivity of features, but rather the fact that the faction is barren in content? That's the real problem, and keeping carriers exclusive won't fix it, or help the situation. This was pointed out before, and gets pointed out every several pages after someone bombs the topic with a carbon copy argument.
Edit: And yeah, every time I leave or enter Qo'nos, I see about half the ships are carriers or BOP's. The quoted person has a point. The only exception to this is if it's really late in the day, when most people are asleep. At which point the ratio gets a bit wonky due to the odd time.
yea so ive been thinking...where is the shuttle bay door on the defiant? ive been wondering where the fighters ave been launching when i hit the scorpion fighter button.
yea so ive been thinking...where is the shuttle bay door on the defiant? ive been wondering where the fighters ave been launching when i hit the scorpion fighter button.
Virusdancer I WILL GET BACK TO YOU I just had (what I think is) a brilliant moment of inspiration regarding the T5 Akira Console:
Ships that get two hangars get nerfed horribly for the "privilege" right? Ships that get one Hangar get less so.
There's a worry that a Hangar-Console will necessitate the T5 Akira to be nerfed assuming it's use. There's also the desire (which is understandable) to have a proper Hangar slot because then the player can slot different deployables into it rather than just the one as is assumed with a Console. There's also the group that won't settle for a anything less than two Hangar slots, who will not be satisfied by a single Console.
So here's my proposed solution:
Two Consoles, which cause their own nerf (negative stat bonuses when equipped) which change function depending upon where they're slotted.
Consoles that come with C-Store ships are Universal, in that they can be slotted in Engineering, Science, or Tactical Console Slots. What if the Akira Auxiliary Craft Console changed what it does depending upon whether it's slotted in a Engineering, Science, or Tactical Console Slot?
If it's slotted in an Engineering slot, it summons of three Runabouts that work to heal your ships Hull and/or debuff the enemy.
If it's slotted in a Science slot, it summons three Delta Flyers that work to wipe debuffs off of youand/or heal your shields.
If it's slotted in a Tactical slot, it summons three Peregrine Fighters that work to fight the enemy and/or give you tactical buffs.
Lets say the T5 Akira has a 3/2/4 Console set up, to present an alternative to the Fleet Escort. A Carrier fan can slot both consoles into the Tac Slots and get the ability to launch two waves of 3 Peregrines each, or they could slot them in the Engineering slots and get two waves of 3 Runabouts each, or in the Science slots and get two waves of three Delta Flyers each. Or One in a Tac Slot and One in the Science slot and get three Peregrines and three Delta Flyers, or one in an Engineering slot one in a Science slot and get..
You get the idea? Multiple kinds of deployables, one or two "hangar" set ups as you desire, and the Akira itself isn't nerfed, the plain Akira fans get what they want, and no ship is made-to-be a Carrier unsupported by the canon.
That's like taking out an entire migratory group with a pebble.
With those consoles though, before they became universal - were the ships not balanced (other stats lowered) for having those consoles? Were they not part of the balancing done for the ship?
When they became available to other ships that were not balanced for them, did that not create an imbalance?
What if instead of those ships not being balanced with the consoles, that the consoles themselves applied balancing? So, correct me if I'm wrong, currently it would be X ship with Y console. X ship is balanced around having Y console. Instead, X ship is balanced without the console . . . when that Y console is used, not only does it provide the benefit; but it also lowers other stats - to maintain a form of balance.
Were something done like that, in general I'd have less trouble with the console changes that were done - and - would not have as much trouble with the suggestion of consoles instead of hangars.
The only other major issue I would have is with regard to "size" - I can't see launching three Runabouts from a Miranda much less a Saber, etc.
As an aside, folks really want two hangars on an Akira? A Vo'Quv is around 1300m in length - the Akira is less than 500m. That is kind of what I was getting into about the compromise between the folks that want a Fed carrier that can launch dreads and those that want one that can launch two aux...
...then again, looking at that list of aux craft the Vesta's supposed to have; it's only 672m long.
It's odd reading the MB stuff about the Akira supposedly having a compliment of 40 fighters. Then again, if one reads many of the things out there - most ships have a "bazillion" phasers and launchers, for each facing...lol.
I think that idea is more fitting the "Star Trek" concept than just a fighter carrier. Heck, my thoughts on the Akira had been as a shuttlecarrier to provide the ability of ferrying items to planets as a relief measure during times of disaster; not as a fighter carrier.
There are references to Starfleet fighters in regard to the Academy, etc - but they generally do not fit that multi-purpose nature that one could get from shuttles and a shuttlecarrier, rather than a fighter carrier.
Which in of itself, would be a major difference between Fed and KDF carriers: shuttles and fighters.
To an extent, I suppose it comes down to a major redesign of consoles...meh. They're too simplified for me, when you take a look at universal consoles (which kind of touches upon what Lockerd said about consoles taking up multiple slots).
If one goes through and looks at the various Engineering, Science, and Tactical Consoles - size comes to mind, at least it does to me. Adding in universals muddles that.
I would have preferred that certain ships have actual universal slots rather than have universal consoles that can go in any slot.
Depending on the size of the ship, it would have more universal slots. In effect, this would allow for larger ships that have the universal slots - to undergo - a conversion to a pseudo-carrier.
In a sense, by going with universal console slots (rather than universal consoles) - one could equip additional weapons as supposedly seen on certain ships, could beef up the armor as seen on certain ships, could have that shuttlecarrier as speculated here and there.
Going back to the T5 Akira again, one could have their shuttlecarrier - one could have their missile cruiser, etc, etc, etc.
We would not have tiny escort/cruisers acting as carriers - but we could have Fed ships that could function as carriers.
Of course, it brings up the question of what to do with KDF ships, eh? I'd say let them keep the hangar slots and still give them universal slots. A Bortas should not be able to launch as many fighters as a Vo'Quv, but given the talk about the +1 Bortas being able to launch a BOP...well...
...that gives PWE/Cryptic the opportunity for additional funds as +1 versions of ships would have those universal slots (or additional universal slots, etc).
With those consoles though, before they became universal - were the ships not balanced (other stats lowered) for having those consoles? Were they not part of the balancing done for the ship?
They were, the T5 Defiant, for example, lost an intended Console slot for it's cloak. But when the Cloak became a Console, the Defiant got it's Console Slot back.
Ships with special abilities generally lost something in exchange for them, when those abilities were converted to Consoles, the ships generally got them back (the exception being the Dreadnought, because while it did get it's console slot back when the Cloak went to a Console, it still has it's built in Phaser Lance, so it's turn rate is still nerfed in exchange).
And every ship that has come out since that has a console has had the same pattern. The outliers are the ships with Hangars. A Hangar slot, because they assume you will use it, results in a nerf of some kind, generally turn rate or Hull numbers, even if you leave the Hangar empty
If the T5 Akira gets Consoles instead of Hangar Slots, the base ship will be fine, if it gets Hangars, it'll be beaten to death with a Nerf bat.
I understand and agree with the stand on realism as far as shuttlebays and storage go, but that's why I've been using he word "Summon", the craft aren't launched (and thus have no need of storage space), they warp in. This gives Carrier fans similar enough functionality without needing to Nerf the T5 Akira itself, and thus not hurt the fans who just want a T5 Akira but who wouldn't use it as a Carrier.
That's very confusing to read... given that is what "soft cannon" attempts to do and you appear so opposed to "soft cannon" - much of it is filling in the gaps, continuing the stories we've seen, elaborating on what could have been going on, etc, etc, etc.
The thing is, and I'm going to use a cooking analogy here, is that the Hard Canon is the original recipe.
Soft canon is somebody elses interpretation of the hard canon, the original recipe with some parts changed and new parts added which is fine on it's own.
But what soft-canon fans are asking for is for someone to take the soft canon recipe (which has already departed form the hard canon original recipe), and change it up even more, to make an alteration to an already altered recipe.
At that point, it ceases to be the same dish. Star Trek hard canon is awesome, Star Trek soft canon less so, but soft canon based on soft canon goes too far. It ceases to be Star Trek at that point, but a new mashed up work (somewhat) inspired by Star Trek.
And if you know anything about movies made from books, you know that "based on" and "inspired by" can be very very different.
STO is soft canon, I don't want it to go farther from the hard canon by drawing from a bunch of other soft canon sources when there's still so much hard canon to draw from and expand upon.
The thing is, and I'm going to use a cooking analogy here, is that the Hard Canon is the original recipe.
Soft canon is somebody elses interpretation of the hard canon, the original recipe with some parts changed and new parts added which is fine on it's own.
But what soft-canon fans are asking for is for someone to take the soft canon recipe (which has already departed form the hard canon original recipe), and change it up even more, to make an alteration to an already altered recipe.
At that point, it ceases to be the same dish. Star Trek hard canon is awesome, Star Trek soft canon less so, but soft canon based on soft canon goes too far. It ceases to be Star Trek at that point, but a new mashed up work (somewhat) inspired by Star Trek.
And if you know anything about movies made from books, you know that "based on" and "inspired by" can be very very different.
STO is soft canon, I don't want it to go farther from the hard canon by drawing from a bunch of other soft canon sources when there's still so much hard canon to draw from and expand upon.
Katic, even I have to admit, the Hard-canon is 30 years old exluding the Gal-X...none of it would be truely useful in this new era, hell even the Runabouts are getting renovated to be out of the 30 year gap.
but there has to be a compromise here.
I have accepted we wont get a true ST experience so long as there is no Real Exploration but I can still hope.
The continuing length of this thread implies that this idea is not getting put to rest. What are we going to give Klingons if Feds get this? There is simply nothing unique about this unfinished race.
Plus, I hate the Preservers/ancient race idea. Klingons and humans are not related. That is all.
The thing is, and I'm going to use a cooking analogy here, is that the Hard Canon is the original recipe.
Soft canon is somebody elses interpretation of the hard canon, the original recipe with some parts changed and new parts added which is fine on it's own.
But what soft-canon fans are asking for is for someone to take the soft canon recipe (which has already departed form the hard canon original recipe), and change it up even more, to make an alteration to an already altered recipe.
At that point, it ceases to be the same dish. Star Trek hard canon is awesome, Star Trek soft canon less so, but soft canon based on soft canon goes too far. It ceases to be Star Trek at that point, but a new mashed up work (somewhat) inspired by Star Trek.
And if you know anything about movies made from books, you know that "based on" and "inspired by" can be very very different.
STO is soft canon, I don't want it to go farther from the hard canon by drawing from a bunch of other soft canon sources when there's still so much hard canon to draw from and expand upon.
To an extent, that is basically where the confusion sets in. The last hard cannon was Romulus going boom as mentioned in the alternative reboot. Otherwise, we're going back 30 years to Nemesis.
So short of actually playing through scenarios that took place in an episode or a movie, anything's going to be soft canon.
If something was mentioned in the hard canon, any further elaboration upon it is soft canon.
While I think there's still a misunderstanding about what I called silly willy nilly (which again, to utilize some of your words - would have been akin to the hard -> soft -> soft -> soft -> WTF is this?)... I can't write off all the elaboration on soft canon that was elaborating on hard canon.
Sometimes, it's simply a case of refinement. No doubt there's the extreme possibility of people doing things such as Mission Twilight: Impossible Lord of the Fast and Underworld Rings vs. Furious Penguin Feet... with Bateson at the helm of the U.S.S. Titanic Death Star Mach V; but there is also the opportunity for further refinement of those elaborations from the hard canon.
It's possible to hold to the hard canon while creating soft canon through elaboration. It's possible to refine that soft canon and further elaborate upon it...without losing the hard canon core, without attempting to rewrite that hard canon.
The continuing length of this thread implies that this idea is not getting put to rest. What are we going to give Klingons if Feds get this? There is simply nothing unique about this unfinished race.
Plus, I hate the Preservers/ancient race idea. Klingons and humans are not related. That is all.
Okay, so we'll give Feds a carrier. So then, both sides will have Cruiser/Battle Cruiser, Escort/Raptor, Science, and Carrier...
...in return, we'll give the KDF Raiders and Destroyers!
Oh wait, they already have those as well too...
...hrmmm.
To say there is nothing unique about the KDF...is kind of...off. No doubt they're unfinished, no doubt about that at all. Yet, to say there is nothing unique is not a case of being honest about it.
Okay, so we'll give Feds a carrier. So then, both sides will have Cruiser/Battle Cruiser, Escort/Raptor, Science, and Carrier...
...in return, we'll give the KDF Raiders and Destroyers!
Oh wait, they already have those as well too...
...hrmmm.
To say there is nothing unique about the KDF...is kind of...off. No doubt they're unfinished, no doubt about that at all. Yet, to say there is nothing unique is not a case of being honest about it.
Give me a break, destroyers? This is simply not enough uniqueness to warrant giving Cryptic credit for treating the Klingons fairly. Chill. Maybe you jumped on my wording but I can't believe you would agree that the Klingons have received a fair shake.
Oh, and the Preserver concept must perish in flames. Bony ridges do not appear anywhere in flat human skulls.
Katic, even I have to admit, the Hard-canon is 30 years old exluding the Gal-X...none of it would be truely useful in this new era, hell even the Runabouts are getting renovated to be out of the 30 year gap.
but there has to be a compromise here.
I have accepted we wont get a true ST experience so long as there is no Real Exploration but I can still hope.
To an extent, that is basically where the confusion sets in. The last hard cannon was Romulus going boom as mentioned in the alternative reboot. Otherwise, we're going back 30 years to Nemesis.
So short of actually playing through scenarios that took place in an episode or a movie, anything's going to be soft canon.
If something was mentioned in the hard canon, any further elaboration upon it is soft canon.
While I think there's still a misunderstanding about what I called silly willy nilly (which again, to utilize some of your words - would have been akin to the hard -> soft -> soft -> soft -> WTF is this?)... I can't write off all the elaboration on soft canon that was elaborating on hard canon.
Sometimes, it's simply a case of refinement. No doubt there's the extreme possibility of people doing things such as Mission Twilight: Impossible Lord of the Fast and Underworld Rings vs. Furious Penguin Feet... with Bateson at the helm of the U.S.S. Titanic Death Star Mach V; but there is also the opportunity for further refinement of those elaborations from the hard canon.
It's possible to hold to the hard canon while creating soft canon through elaboration. It's possible to refine that soft canon and further elaborate upon it...without losing the hard canon core, without attempting to rewrite that hard canon.
The thing is, STO is soft canon based on the hard canon, it is one step away from the hard canon, going two steps, to soft canon based on soft canon, is a step too far in my opinion. It's not three or four steps to the "WTF" stage, if you ask me, it's two.
To put it another way, a purely hard canon fan, who has only ever watched the shows and movies, should be able to read the Path to 2409, and jump into STO and experience and understand everything that's going on without having to go reference other soft canon materials to understand whats going on. If we start basing things on the soft canon, that person is going to get really confused, really quickly.
I'm not saying STO should be a still photo of the Star Trek Universe at the time of Nemesis, but that it should be a logical continuation of that hard canon universe, not a mix of that hard canon and a TRIBBLE-ton of junk from the soft.
This is simply not enough uniqueness to warrant giving Cryptic credit for treating the Klingons fairly.
Again, the problem with the Klingon faction is they simply dont have enough content.
I am not going to roll a Klingon so I can have a carrier at Brigadier General, especially when all other carriers are C-Shop, I even created a Klingon character but after beating the first story mission I gone back to space.
Also as you are correct in saying the Faction have major issues, they are not solved by making them having the carriers alone, this have became a excuse to argue against a Federation Carrier, never mind the fact if the Klingon faction ever got over its issues (that is, content) they would now have to be balanced so the Federation would not lose players ... or do you think BoP all rolling on Universal Consoles is fair?
[*]The Federation has an entirely different Shipbuilding ethos than the Empire, Carriers are not faction-appropriate. Starfleet builds Cruisers for Exploration, Science Vessels for research, and Escorts for defense. Carriers are strictly weapons of aggression, they have no scientific, diplomatic, or exploratory value. Starfleet builds all it's vessels with peacetime uses in mind. Carriers don't have any that aren't better filled by other ships already anyway.[/LIST]
Actually the Federation has used carrier ships since the time of Kirk. Difference is, they are not war carriers but rather 'shuttle carriers' used for multipurpose missions.
The Avenger class heavy frigates (made between TNG and DS9 era) were basically an oversized Shiikar-looking frigate that had shuttle bays in the front and rear saucer section and carried a large complement of small ships. This included assault and combat shuttles when the ship was assigned to patrol duties.
Actually the Federation has used carrier ships since the time of Kirk. Difference is, they are not war carriers but rather 'shuttle carriers' used for multipurpose missions.
The Avenger class heavy frigates (made between TNG and DS9 era) were basically an oversized Shiikar-looking frigate that had shuttle bays in the front and rear saucer section and carried a large complement of small ships. This included assault and combat shuttles when the ship was assigned to patrol duties.
Please read the rest of the thread, soft canon (the Halcyon) and fan-fiction works are not what we're talking about here.
Okay, so we'll give Feds a carrier. So then, both sides will have Cruiser/Battle Cruiser, Escort/Raptor, Science, and Carrier...
...in return, we'll give the KDF Raiders and Destroyers!
Oh wait, they already have those as well too...
...hrmmm.
To say there is nothing unique about the KDF...is kind of...off. No doubt they're unfinished, no doubt about that at all. Yet, to say there is nothing unique is not a case of being honest about it.
Conclusion: KDF is Lacking is ship Types and substantionlly lacking in ship Costume variation.
*Number include both free and C-Store ships and costumes
FREE ONLY:
Tier 1 Fed 1 type + 3 Costume variation KDF 1 Type + 2 Costume variation
But for the sake of items called "free" even thou you had to buy your way to 600 days: Tier 5 VA/LG With Free 600 Day Veteran Token Fed 3 Types + 8 Costume variation KDF 2 Types + 2 Costume variation
Comments
The reason you see so many KDF flying those two exclusive craft types is that they're optimal for PVP and PVE.
BoP's are basically escorts that are slightly squishier but have cloaking capabilities, higher maneuverability then other escort types, and some nasty DPS. The closest mirror the Feds have to them is the Defiant retrofit, which has similar hull, I believe. Carriers have cruiser-like stats and let you hit multiple targets at once not counting skills like FAW, or burn something down really fast while using them as a defensive cover.
Both of these ship types are great for quickly doing content in the end-game, leveling, and especially PVP. The nature of STO's space combat for most of the game means that he who does the most damage is going to be the one who wins a given fight nine times out of ten. Utility is often an accessory to killing stuff, not an acceptable route to go if a player is intelligent. This is why a well played DPS geared escort with Rapid Fire and Torp Volley stacked on its console slots several times can take on a Cube 1V1 and win in an elite, while a cruiser can't. Add onto that the ability to cloak and give the ship more turn rate/speed and you give someone first strike capability and the ability to disengage at will to heal up.
If there were skills that were actually geared towards tanking (Sci has the most of them, it seems. Things like Feedback Pulse are an effective way of trying to reverse some of the damage cannons can spew out by the thousands.) as a primary role, you'd see a change in this dynamic.
As it is now "Threat Control" is only recently a thing, and doesn't actively play a role in how you design your ship. Rather, it's a skill you can put points into, and the skills you get don't really effect your threat outside of DPS. Which is also why end-game geared escorts will easily yank threat off of a cruiser if they know what they're doing.
When you're playing the most effective ship class in terms of overall potential, there's really not much reason to actually fly anything else.
Edit: If broadening KDF exclusive features is going to kill the KDF population, then maybe the problem isn't the non-exclusivity of features, but rather the fact that the faction is barren in content? That's the real problem, and keeping carriers exclusive won't fix it, or help the situation. This was pointed out before, and gets pointed out every several pages after someone bombs the topic with a carbon copy argument.
Edit: And yeah, every time I leave or enter Qo'nos, I see about half the ships are carriers or BOP's. The quoted person has a point. The only exception to this is if it's really late in the day, when most people are asleep. At which point the ratio gets a bit wonky due to the odd time.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Chaffee
Check the top image via the link
Ships that get two hangars get nerfed horribly for the "privilege" right? Ships that get one Hangar get less so.
There's a worry that a Hangar-Console will necessitate the T5 Akira to be nerfed assuming it's use. There's also the desire (which is understandable) to have a proper Hangar slot because then the player can slot different deployables into it rather than just the one as is assumed with a Console. There's also the group that won't settle for a anything less than two Hangar slots, who will not be satisfied by a single Console.
So here's my proposed solution:
Two Consoles, which cause their own nerf (negative stat bonuses when equipped) which change function depending upon where they're slotted.
Consoles that come with C-Store ships are Universal, in that they can be slotted in Engineering, Science, or Tactical Console Slots. What if the Akira Auxiliary Craft Console changed what it does depending upon whether it's slotted in a Engineering, Science, or Tactical Console Slot?
Lets say the T5 Akira has a 3/2/4 Console set up, to present an alternative to the Fleet Escort. A Carrier fan can slot both consoles into the Tac Slots and get the ability to launch two waves of 3 Peregrines each, or they could slot them in the Engineering slots and get two waves of 3 Runabouts each, or in the Science slots and get two waves of three Delta Flyers each. Or One in a Tac Slot and One in the Science slot and get three Peregrines and three Delta Flyers, or one in an Engineering slot one in a Science slot and get..
You get the idea? Multiple kinds of deployables, one or two "hangar" set ups as you desire, and the Akira itself isn't nerfed, the plain Akira fans get what they want, and no ship is made-to-be a Carrier unsupported by the canon.
That's like taking out an entire migratory group with a pebble.
When they became available to other ships that were not balanced for them, did that not create an imbalance?
What if instead of those ships not being balanced with the consoles, that the consoles themselves applied balancing? So, correct me if I'm wrong, currently it would be X ship with Y console. X ship is balanced around having Y console. Instead, X ship is balanced without the console . . . when that Y console is used, not only does it provide the benefit; but it also lowers other stats - to maintain a form of balance.
Were something done like that, in general I'd have less trouble with the console changes that were done - and - would not have as much trouble with the suggestion of consoles instead of hangars.
The only other major issue I would have is with regard to "size" - I can't see launching three Runabouts from a Miranda much less a Saber, etc.
As an aside, folks really want two hangars on an Akira? A Vo'Quv is around 1300m in length - the Akira is less than 500m. That is kind of what I was getting into about the compromise between the folks that want a Fed carrier that can launch dreads and those that want one that can launch two aux...
...then again, looking at that list of aux craft the Vesta's supposed to have; it's only 672m long.
It's odd reading the MB stuff about the Akira supposedly having a compliment of 40 fighters. Then again, if one reads many of the things out there - most ships have a "bazillion" phasers and launchers, for each facing...lol.
I think that idea is more fitting the "Star Trek" concept than just a fighter carrier. Heck, my thoughts on the Akira had been as a shuttlecarrier to provide the ability of ferrying items to planets as a relief measure during times of disaster; not as a fighter carrier.
There are references to Starfleet fighters in regard to the Academy, etc - but they generally do not fit that multi-purpose nature that one could get from shuttles and a shuttlecarrier, rather than a fighter carrier.
Which in of itself, would be a major difference between Fed and KDF carriers: shuttles and fighters.
Wrong. I play those because why would I fly the same ships I already do on fed side?
If one goes through and looks at the various Engineering, Science, and Tactical Consoles - size comes to mind, at least it does to me. Adding in universals muddles that.
I would have preferred that certain ships have actual universal slots rather than have universal consoles that can go in any slot.
Depending on the size of the ship, it would have more universal slots. In effect, this would allow for larger ships that have the universal slots - to undergo - a conversion to a pseudo-carrier.
In a sense, by going with universal console slots (rather than universal consoles) - one could equip additional weapons as supposedly seen on certain ships, could beef up the armor as seen on certain ships, could have that shuttlecarrier as speculated here and there.
Going back to the T5 Akira again, one could have their shuttlecarrier - one could have their missile cruiser, etc, etc, etc.
We would not have tiny escort/cruisers acting as carriers - but we could have Fed ships that could function as carriers.
Of course, it brings up the question of what to do with KDF ships, eh? I'd say let them keep the hangar slots and still give them universal slots. A Bortas should not be able to launch as many fighters as a Vo'Quv, but given the talk about the +1 Bortas being able to launch a BOP...well...
...that gives PWE/Cryptic the opportunity for additional funds as +1 versions of ships would have those universal slots (or additional universal slots, etc).
They were, the T5 Defiant, for example, lost an intended Console slot for it's cloak. But when the Cloak became a Console, the Defiant got it's Console Slot back.
Ships with special abilities generally lost something in exchange for them, when those abilities were converted to Consoles, the ships generally got them back (the exception being the Dreadnought, because while it did get it's console slot back when the Cloak went to a Console, it still has it's built in Phaser Lance, so it's turn rate is still nerfed in exchange).
And every ship that has come out since that has a console has had the same pattern. The outliers are the ships with Hangars. A Hangar slot, because they assume you will use it, results in a nerf of some kind, generally turn rate or Hull numbers, even if you leave the Hangar empty
If the T5 Akira gets Consoles instead of Hangar Slots, the base ship will be fine, if it gets Hangars, it'll be beaten to death with a Nerf bat.
I understand and agree with the stand on realism as far as shuttlebays and storage go, but that's why I've been using he word "Summon", the craft aren't launched (and thus have no need of storage space), they warp in. This gives Carrier fans similar enough functionality without needing to Nerf the T5 Akira itself, and thus not hurt the fans who just want a T5 Akira but who wouldn't use it as a Carrier.
Actually there are several novel series running now as well.
Actually that was family guy.
no actualy it was Robot Chicken, just checked it now, at the end the redshirt says "im the only one who brought a phaser!"
i just watched in on family guy, family guy is the one where ensign ricky says ah TRIBBLE
Family Guy - TRIBBLE.
Robot Chicken - phaser.
Both shows as well as others have played around with Redshirts.
The thing is, and I'm going to use a cooking analogy here, is that the Hard Canon is the original recipe.
Soft canon is somebody elses interpretation of the hard canon, the original recipe with some parts changed and new parts added which is fine on it's own.
But what soft-canon fans are asking for is for someone to take the soft canon recipe (which has already departed form the hard canon original recipe), and change it up even more, to make an alteration to an already altered recipe.
At that point, it ceases to be the same dish. Star Trek hard canon is awesome, Star Trek soft canon less so, but soft canon based on soft canon goes too far. It ceases to be Star Trek at that point, but a new mashed up work (somewhat) inspired by Star Trek.
And if you know anything about movies made from books, you know that "based on" and "inspired by" can be very very different.
STO is soft canon, I don't want it to go farther from the hard canon by drawing from a bunch of other soft canon sources when there's still so much hard canon to draw from and expand upon.
Katic, even I have to admit, the Hard-canon is 30 years old exluding the Gal-X...none of it would be truely useful in this new era, hell even the Runabouts are getting renovated to be out of the 30 year gap.
but there has to be a compromise here.
I have accepted we wont get a true ST experience so long as there is no Real Exploration but I can still hope.
Plus, I hate the Preservers/ancient race idea. Klingons and humans are not related. That is all.
To an extent, that is basically where the confusion sets in. The last hard cannon was Romulus going boom as mentioned in the alternative reboot. Otherwise, we're going back 30 years to Nemesis.
So short of actually playing through scenarios that took place in an episode or a movie, anything's going to be soft canon.
If something was mentioned in the hard canon, any further elaboration upon it is soft canon.
While I think there's still a misunderstanding about what I called silly willy nilly (which again, to utilize some of your words - would have been akin to the hard -> soft -> soft -> soft -> WTF is this?)... I can't write off all the elaboration on soft canon that was elaborating on hard canon.
Sometimes, it's simply a case of refinement. No doubt there's the extreme possibility of people doing things such as Mission Twilight: Impossible Lord of the Fast and Underworld Rings vs. Furious Penguin Feet... with Bateson at the helm of the U.S.S. Titanic Death Star Mach V; but there is also the opportunity for further refinement of those elaborations from the hard canon.
It's possible to hold to the hard canon while creating soft canon through elaboration. It's possible to refine that soft canon and further elaborate upon it...without losing the hard canon core, without attempting to rewrite that hard canon.
The Klingon race is already unique. You don't need carrier ships to do that.
Okay, so we'll give Feds a carrier. So then, both sides will have Cruiser/Battle Cruiser, Escort/Raptor, Science, and Carrier...
...in return, we'll give the KDF Raiders and Destroyers!
Oh wait, they already have those as well too...
...hrmmm.
To say there is nothing unique about the KDF...is kind of...off. No doubt they're unfinished, no doubt about that at all. Yet, to say there is nothing unique is not a case of being honest about it.
Give me a break, destroyers? This is simply not enough uniqueness to warrant giving Cryptic credit for treating the Klingons fairly. Chill. Maybe you jumped on my wording but I can't believe you would agree that the Klingons have received a fair shake.
Oh, and the Preserver concept must perish in flames. Bony ridges do not appear anywhere in flat human skulls.
The thing is, STO is soft canon based on the hard canon, it is one step away from the hard canon, going two steps, to soft canon based on soft canon, is a step too far in my opinion. It's not three or four steps to the "WTF" stage, if you ask me, it's two.
To put it another way, a purely hard canon fan, who has only ever watched the shows and movies, should be able to read the Path to 2409, and jump into STO and experience and understand everything that's going on without having to go reference other soft canon materials to understand whats going on. If we start basing things on the soft canon, that person is going to get really confused, really quickly.
I'm not saying STO should be a still photo of the Star Trek Universe at the time of Nemesis, but that it should be a logical continuation of that hard canon universe, not a mix of that hard canon and a TRIBBLE-ton of junk from the soft.
Again, the problem with the Klingon faction is they simply dont have enough content.
I am not going to roll a Klingon so I can have a carrier at Brigadier General, especially when all other carriers are C-Shop, I even created a Klingon character but after beating the first story mission I gone back to space.
Also as you are correct in saying the Faction have major issues, they are not solved by making them having the carriers alone, this have became a excuse to argue against a Federation Carrier, never mind the fact if the Klingon faction ever got over its issues (that is, content) they would now have to be balanced so the Federation would not lose players ... or do you think BoP all rolling on Universal Consoles is fair?
Actually the Federation has used carrier ships since the time of Kirk. Difference is, they are not war carriers but rather 'shuttle carriers' used for multipurpose missions.
The Avenger class heavy frigates (made between TNG and DS9 era) were basically an oversized Shiikar-looking frigate that had shuttle bays in the front and rear saucer section and carried a large complement of small ships. This included assault and combat shuttles when the ship was assigned to patrol duties.
Please read the rest of the thread, soft canon (the Halcyon) and fan-fiction works are not what we're talking about here.
1.) It's not cannon, there was no mention of the Federation ever having or using a carier in the TV shows or Movies ( dito for Klingons).
2.) Any job a Fighter could do a larger ship can do better, except fit into smal spaces (but you have shuttles for that).
So by this argument Klingons should not have a carrier either.
I completely agree.
ok...
Let's look at the numbers.
Tier 1
Fed 4 Types + 3 Costume variation
KDF 1 type + 1 Costume variation
Tier 2
Fed 6 Types + 12 Costume variation
KDF 3 Types + 0 Costume variation
Tier 3
Fed 6 Types + 10 Costume variation
KDF 9 Types + 6 Costume variation + 1 either/or Costume
Tier 4
Fed 6 Types + 12 Costume variation
KDF 9 Types + 7 Costume variation
Tier 5 RA/BG
Fed 9 Types + 24 Costume variation
KDF 7 Types + 11 Costume variation
Tier 5 VA/LG
Fed 6 Types + 15 Costume variation
KDF 4 Types + 2 Costume variation
Totals
Fed 37 Types + 76 Costume variation
KDF 33 Types + 27 Costume variation + 1 either/or costume
Conclusion: KDF is Lacking is ship Types and substantionlly lacking in ship Costume variation.
*Number include both free and C-Store ships and costumes
FREE ONLY:
Tier 1
Fed 1 type + 3 Costume variation
KDF 1 Type + 2 Costume variation
Tier 2
Fed 3 Types + 9 Costume variation
KDF 3 Types + 0 Costume variation
Tier 3
Fed 3 Types + 9 Costume variation
KDF 3 Types + 1 either/or costume
Tier 4
Fed 3 Types + 9 Costume variation
KDF 3 Types + 0 Costume variation
Tier 5 RA/BG
Fed 6 Types + 18 Costume variation
KDF 4 Types + 6 Costume variation
Tier 5 VA/LG = Zero
But for the sake of items called "free" even thou you had to buy your way to 600 days:
Tier 5 VA/LG With Free 600 Day Veteran Token
Fed 3 Types + 8 Costume variation
KDF 2 Types + 2 Costume variation
Totals
Fed 19 Types + 56 Costume variation
KDF 16 Types + 8 Costume variation + 1 either/or costume
There are the numbers.
Question: How many free in-game Science ships do the KDF have?
Why a troll? I only post if i feel strongly about someting or have something to contribute