No, the closest we get to that is the BoPs, and they're not the optimal science-using option for that reason. . .they're TOO fragile. They also don't have an innate AUX boost.
Yeah, the closest we have to that are BoP's, and no they're not ideal for it. So, what's your point? The Romulan faction is explained by the devs to foster a high risk-to-reward play style, and a cloaking science vessel/carrier plays right to that.
Stay cloaked when/while you can, operate on the periphery of the battle buffing and debuffing while your combat pets deal your damage. Solo, hit-and-run with science powers while your combat pets harass. If you're caught or get aggro, you're screwed. That's right up the Romulans' alley, a style of ship and combat we have yet to see realized in the game, that has great potential for fun and effect.
Somebody getting uppity about canon? No problem! Just take a deep breath, and repeat after me:
I can't help but hope that it has a better rate of turn than the Kar'Fi if it did turn out to be a battle carrier. It really doesn't look like a wallowing space barge anyway.
I've always been a carrier fan, and I figure by now cryptic realizes that carriers are popular - we have two carriers fed side and several kdf side, so it stands to reason that they wont 'forget' carriers for the romulans.
I can't help but hope that it has a better rate of turn than the Kar'Fi if it did turn out to be a battle carrier. It really doesn't look like a wallowing space barge anyway.
This ship from the tribble foundry looks a bit like it. The nose and nacelles don't match, but notice the doors at the base of each wing and the "funnel" shape leading back from the doors.
If it is a carrier, I'd expect it to fill more of an Armitage role than a Kar'fi one. The dev blog said the Mogai was closest to a destroyer, so possibly something like the Jem'hadar heavy escort carrier.
This ship from the tribble foundry looks a bit like it. The nose and nacelles don't match, but notice the doors at the base of each wing and the "funnel" shape leading back from the doors.
If it is a carrier, I'd expect it to fill more of an Armitage role than a Kar'fi one. The dev blog said the Mogai was closest to a destroyer, so possibly something like the Jem'hadar heavy escort carrier.
Wow, that's hideous.
So is that Scimitar for that matter; is that a new variant, or have I just been looking at the Scimitar with rose tinted glasses on all this time?
I pray for a carrier with 4 hangars, and only nominal weaponry slots, like 2 fore 1 aft
Two hangars with 3 slots fore, 3 slots aft, with no capability to load out dual cannons is probably the best we can expect with a cloaking device and an adequate console/boff slot arrangement. That's more than enough to do the job, and well.
Though, I hope in lieu of sensor analysis or subsystem targeting, it would have a passive that operates analogously to sensor analysis but grants a DR or defense debuff as it stacks.
Somebody getting uppity about canon? No problem! Just take a deep breath, and repeat after me:
I guess the only reason the Scimitar isn't a 2 hangar carrier is because that'll make it even more powerful than it already is. But I still stand my ground, how can you have 3,000 crew members like the other carriers and not have 2 hangar's (especially when the Ar'kif got one hangar)?
Give the Scimitar two hangar bays as a stop gap. I guess "overpowered" will be a problem,... but they can remove a forward weapon slot (Making it 4/3 like a JHDC), remove one Tactical slot and move it up to the Engineering slot (to make room for the second hangar bay).
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
I guess the only reason the Scimitar isn't a 2 hangar carrier is because that'll make it even more powerful than it already is. But I still stand my ground, how can you have 3,000 crew members like the other carriers and not have 2 hangar's (especially when the Ar'kif got one hangar)?
Give the Scimitar two hangar bays as a stop gap. I guess "overpowered" will be a problem,... but they can remove a forward weapon slot (Making it 4/3 like a JHDC), remove one Tactical slot and move it up to the Engineering slot (to make room for the second hangar bay).
yea how about lets not do that.
a hangar is no replacement for a forward gun.
stop trying to ruin the scimitar thx.
Two hangars with 3 slots fore, 3 slots aft, with no capability to load out dual cannons is probably the best we can expect with a cloaking device and an adequate console/boff slot arrangement. That's more than enough to do the job, and well.
Though, I hope in lieu of sensor analysis or subsystem targeting, it would have a passive that operates analogously to sensor analysis but grants a DR or defense debuff as it stacks.
I've personally thought "what if the game introduced 3 or 4 slot hangars?" But I don't see how cryptic can make them useful. If it had that many hangar slots then 3/4 hangar slot carriers would have to be Engineering ships only. Also, because a carrier with that many slots would be a "sitting duck", Cryptic would have to make it's fighters immune to explosions (so that they won't blow up themselves) because the fighters would be the main source of DPS. Even if the carrier had 2 fore/ 1 aft or 2 fore/ 2 aft.
==post above is by ataloss==
EDIT: Closed for necroing an old thread. Remember, if a thread has been inactive for 30 days, you should not post to it. Feel free to create a new thread on the subject if you would like to discuss further ~BranFlakes
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
Comments
With this filling a frigate role http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050128184103/memoryalpha/en/images/9/98/Romulan_scout_ship.jpg hint hint again Cryptic
Yeah, the closest we have to that are BoP's, and no they're not ideal for it. So, what's your point? The Romulan faction is explained by the devs to foster a high risk-to-reward play style, and a cloaking science vessel/carrier plays right to that.
Stay cloaked when/while you can, operate on the periphery of the battle buffing and debuffing while your combat pets deal your damage. Solo, hit-and-run with science powers while your combat pets harass. If you're caught or get aggro, you're screwed. That's right up the Romulans' alley, a style of ship and combat we have yet to see realized in the game, that has great potential for fun and effect.
Spock's Brain.
that ship... is too awesome , if cryptic added that i would probably main a romulan.
I can't help but hope that it has a better rate of turn than the Kar'Fi if it did turn out to be a battle carrier. It really doesn't look like a wallowing space barge anyway.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
then the player do nothing only wait, and is boring waiting
4 hangars, few but powerful scorpions fighters,
Possible Carriers:
Mogai Variant
D'deridex Variant
Underpowered/slighly smaller Version of the Scimitar
Hax'Paxd/T5 ship Variant
It looks very much like a Mogai variant.
http://gyazo.com/5ced864e4641ff3e991813f9c43bf7e6.png?1364529806
This ship from the tribble foundry looks a bit like it. The nose and nacelles don't match, but notice the doors at the base of each wing and the "funnel" shape leading back from the doors.
If it is a carrier, I'd expect it to fill more of an Armitage role than a Kar'fi one. The dev blog said the Mogai was closest to a destroyer, so possibly something like the Jem'hadar heavy escort carrier.
Wow, that's hideous.
So is that Scimitar for that matter; is that a new variant, or have I just been looking at the Scimitar with rose tinted glasses on all this time?
The one in the background is the original. The variant definitely is a case of a designer not knowing when to stop designing.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it's hideous.
My character Tsin'xing
The scimitar is a 30 year old design that we've fought in game atleast twice before without it being much of a problem.
Just because ST:Nemesis was written doesn't necessarily mean there's a balance problem now.
Nah. I don't want one, but I would like to see it added for my fellow Romulan players who want it.
I don't want one either (but everyone else is welcome to them)
Two hangars with 3 slots fore, 3 slots aft, with no capability to load out dual cannons is probably the best we can expect with a cloaking device and an adequate console/boff slot arrangement. That's more than enough to do the job, and well.
Though, I hope in lieu of sensor analysis or subsystem targeting, it would have a passive that operates analogously to sensor analysis but grants a DR or defense debuff as it stacks.
Spock's Brain.
More hangars (3 or 4) with less weapon slots (2F/1B) is the best option, no cloak device needed (how would pets attack when carrier is cloaked?).
Give us carrier
necropost that is all
Ships with 3,000+ crew & 2 hangar bays
Kar'Fi Battle Carrier....2 hangar bays
Caitian Atrox Carrier...2 hangar bays
Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier....2 hangar bays
Vo'Quv Carrier/Fleet version/Mirror Universe version...........2 hangar bays
Give the Scimitar two hangar bays as a stop gap. I guess "overpowered" will be a problem,... but they can remove a forward weapon slot (Making it 4/3 like a JHDC), remove one Tactical slot and move it up to the Engineering slot (to make room for the second hangar bay).
yea how about lets not do that.
a hangar is no replacement for a forward gun.
stop trying to ruin the scimitar thx.
I've personally thought "what if the game introduced 3 or 4 slot hangars?" But I don't see how cryptic can make them useful. If it had that many hangar slots then 3/4 hangar slot carriers would have to be Engineering ships only. Also, because a carrier with that many slots would be a "sitting duck", Cryptic would have to make it's fighters immune to explosions (so that they won't blow up themselves) because the fighters would be the main source of DPS. Even if the carrier had 2 fore/ 1 aft or 2 fore/ 2 aft.
==post above is by ataloss==
EDIT: Closed for necroing an old thread. Remember, if a thread has been inactive for 30 days, you should not post to it. Feel free to create a new thread on the subject if you would like to discuss further