AFAIK there are only 5 "type" classes, which are Escort, Cruiser, Carrier, Science, and Warbird. A ship can be multiple types, ie Escort Carrier, or Flight-Deck Cruiser (cruiser carrier), or Warbird Carrier, or Science Cruiser, or Science Warbird.
edit--forgot the new Raider class
Battleship, Destroyer, Dreadnought, Frigate, etc., dont mean anything other than "maybe it plays this role"
But it says nothing about the ship that the person is flying - without further saying what type of ship the person is flying.
Tom: I fly a Dreadnought.
Jerry: Er...? A Cruiser? A Warbird? A Carrier?
It's not a Cruiser Dreadnought, not a Warbird Dreadnought, nor a Carrier Dreadnought.
They are not different types of Dreadnoughts...the Dreadnought Cruiser is a different type of Cruiser, the Dreadnought Warbird is a different type of Warbird, and the Dreadnought Carrier is a different type of Carrier.
Saying that one flies a Dreadnought - they might as well be saying they fly a Heavy.
Tom: I fly a Heavy.
Jerry: Er...? Heavy Cruiser? Mirror Universe Heavy Cruiser Retrofit? Heavy Cruiser Retrofit? Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit? Advanced Heavy Cruiser? Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit? Fleet Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit? Heavy Escort? Heavy Escort Refit? Heavy Escort Carrier? Fleet Heavy Escort Carrier? Heavy Destroyer? Fleet Heavy Destroyer? Heavy Bird-of-Prey? Heavy Raptor? Mirror Universe Heavy Raptor? Fleet Heavy Raptor? Heavy Battle Cruiser? Mirror Universe Heavy Battle Cruiser? Fleet Heavy Battle Cruiser? Heavy Warbird? Heavy Warbird Refit? Heavy Warbird Retrofit? Fleet Heavy Warbird Retrofit? Heavy Raider?
Dreadnought...it's an adjective. Light, Heavy, Advanced, Tactical, etc, etc, etc. Adjectives that are applied to various types of ships.
And things are not simply what they are because that's what they are called...outside of something like the Aquarius Destroyer, you generally see that the name goes hand in hand with a set of defining elements. Whether Cryptic decides that they need to add a new Escort or they add a new ship they decide to call an Escort, that ship will have defining characteristics which belong to an Escort. They would not add a new ship with an Ensign Tac, Cmdr/LCdr Eng, Lt/Lt Sci...with 2 Tac/5 Eng/3 Sci consoles...6 turn...and call it an Escort.
Which is one of the reasons there's the general hubbub about the Aquarius Destroyer...since it's obviously not a Destroyer. The Ody's pet is called an Escort. They should have simply called it an Escort to match that name...
edit: It goes to what you said...
Dreadnought alone doesn't communicate the type of ship somebody is flying. Dreadnought Cruiser does. Even saying Gal-X Dread communicates that the person is in a Dreadnought Cruiser. Jem Dread communicates that they're in a Dreadnought Carrier. Both are simply shorthand...however, Dread or Dreadnought alone communicates nothing. Might as well say they're flying a Heavy...er...a Heavy what?
I don't understand why you're telling me all this. Are you implying that I'm somehow arguing against it? On the contrary, I never said that part of a ship's title alone is enough to convey sufficient information. I'm saying that some ships in fact are classified as Dreadnoughts, along with other things. Indeed there are more types of Dreadnoughts that would warrant a clarification in your examples. But the same could be said for most other ship types as well. Escort, Raider, Warbird... even Warship(as there are two Warships available now)
But that doesn't change the fact that the ships designated as Dreadnoughts are in fact Dreadnoughts, even if they are also simultaneously a Cruiser, a Warbird, or a Carrier as well.
Edit: Also, "Heavy" is an adjective, while "Dreadnought" is a noun. A more valid statement would be "I fly a heavy ship".
AFAIK there are only 5 "type" classes, which are Escort, Cruiser, Carrier, Science, and Warbird. A ship can be multiple types, ie Escort Carrier, or Flight-Deck Cruiser (cruiser carrier), or Warbird Carrier, or Science Cruiser, or Science Warbird.
Battleship, Destroyer, Dreadnought, Frigate, etc., dont mean anything other than "maybe it plays this role"
Ship classes are really screwy in this game.
I don't think that ship classes are all that screwy in the game...for most ships, even without being given the name, if you're given the stats of the ship - you've got a damn good chance of guessing the classification that Cryptic gave it...because it will line up with the stats.
Edit: Also, "Heavy" is an adjective, while "Dreadnought" is a noun. A more valid statement would be "I fly a heavy ship".
A noun used before another noun to modify the second noun is a noun being used as an adjective.
Dreadnought in of itself is meaningless in the context of ship discussions - it says nothing about the ship without the actual type of ship. There are no unique characteristics amongst Dreadnought Cruisers, Dreadnought Carriers, and Dreadnought Warbirds.
They could have just as easily called them Blue Cruisers, Blue Carriers, and Blue Warbirds.
The term Dreadnought cannot stand on its own as a noun - as it has no definition. Thus, it functions purely as an adjective in this case.
It's only when you combine Dreadnought with another, that the combined terms have definition. A Dreadnought Cruiser is different from a Battle Cruiser, etc, etc, etc.
Somebody saying they fly a Dreadnought is not saying anything...
I don't think that ship classes are all that screwy in the game...for most ships, even without being given the name, if you're given the stats of the ship - you've got a damn good chance of guessing the classification that Cryptic gave it...because it will line up with the stats.
Except for the fact that some ships have a configuration that is so close that playstyles between them are nearly identical. For example, most Raptors, Corvettes, Escorts, tactical Warbirds(as opposed to the Tactical Warbird, a specific type of tactical Warbird), Destroyers, and Warships all suffer from this. Raiders are the only tactical ship type(even if you can classify them as that) to have been given a clearly defined role that sets it apart from other tactical ships so that we don't have to rely on ship titles to know what type of ship they actually are.
A noun used before another noun to modify the second noun is a noun being used as an adjective.
True, but you were talking about using the adjectives alone, correct? Alone, the "Dreadnought" portion of "Federation Dreadnought Cruiser" isn't an adjective, it becomes a noun. In the same context, the "Escort" portion of "Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier" when used alone also becomes a noun. The "Federation Dreadnought Cruiser" is a Dreadnought as much as the "Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier" is an Escort.
I don't think that ship classes are all that screwy in the game...for most ships, even without being given the name, if you're given the stats of the ship - you've got a damn good chance of guessing the classification that Cryptic gave it...because it will line up with the stats.
Science class includes Nova and Nebula, nothing at all alike. Warbird includes T'varo and D'Deridex, nothing alike. Even the more restrictve Escort class includes the Defiant and the Armitage, or worse the new Patrol Refit, but they are wildly different.
The only meaningful way to discuss ships here is by their role. The name is irrelevant. The size is irrelevant. The back-end classification is only partially relevant in the sense that it tells you what kind of special abilities are probably going to have.
The rear-firing cannon, with it's hard-wired RF1 was at first (i thought) silly. I am now firmly in the the 'THIS IS COOL' camp. Alpha strike and if it isn't dead, pass and fire.
As for the console. Simply put, it's situational and devastating. I look forward to finding clusters a ships to use it.
Science class includes Nova and Nebula, nothing at all alike. Warbird includes T'varo and D'Deridex, nothing alike. Even the more restrictve Escort class includes the Defiant and the Armitage, or worse the new Patrol Refit, but they are wildly different.
You do have a point there, even within ship types, individual classes can be pretty different.
The rear-firing cannon, with it's hard-wired RF1 was at first (i thought) silly. I am now firmly in the the 'THIS IS COOL' camp. Alpha strike and if it isn't dead, pass and fire.
As for the console. Simply put, it's situational and devastating. I look forward to finding clusters a ships to use it.
Thumbs up !
Not only that, IMO it's a pretty nice anti-flanking gun~
Except for the fact that some ships have a configuration that is so close that playstyles between them are nearly identical. For example, most Raptors, Corvettes, Escorts, tactical Warbirds(as opposed to the Tactical Warbird, a specific type of tactical Warbird), Destroyers, and Warships all suffer from this. Raiders are the only tactical ship type to have been given a clearly defined role that sets it apart from other tactical ships.
Role, eh? Roles are simply functions that any ship could attempt to perform. A Bortasqu' could perform the role of Escort...in escorting another ship or group of ships. Ship classifications can be based upon size, intended role(s), etc, etc, etc.
Getting into gaming - MMOs - you're going to be looking at roles like Damage, Tank, Healer, Support, etc, etc, etc.
Playstyle is going to vary from player to player - and - various ships offer a wide berth of differing potential playstyles. Heck, just look at what the BOFF seating on this Patrol Escort Refit offers, eh?
Raptors having a cloak that Escorts do not - offers a difference in playstyle. The difference in how the +Defense is gained on the Risian Corvette as well as the difference in Subsystem Power Levels...offers different choices.
One can attempt to force their playstyle on a boat regardless.
Which is where one can see that it is defining characteristics which define the ships...it's not about role, it's not about playstyle, it's about stats.
True, but you were talking about using the adjectives alone, correct? Alone, the "Dreadnought" portion of "Federation Dreadnought Cruiser" isn't an adjective, it becomes a noun. In the same context, the "Escort" portion of "Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier" when used alone also becomes a noun. The "Federation Dreadnought Cruiser" is a Dreadnought as much as the "Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier" is an Escort.
That's a syllogistic fallacy - attempting to compare the Dreadnought Cruiser and Heavy Escort Carrier. The HEC is a subtype of Escort, while the Dreadnought Cruiser is not a subtype of Dreadnought. It is a subtype of Cruiser, much like the Dreadnought Carrier is a subtype of Carrier, and the Dreadnought Warbird is a subtype of Warbird.
Role, eh? Roles are simply functions that any ship could attempt to perform. A Bortasqu' could perform the role of Escort...in escorting another ship or group of ships. Ship classifications can be based upon size, intended role(s), etc, etc, etc.
Getting into gaming - MMOs - you're going to be looking at roles like Damage, Tank, Healer, Support, etc, etc, etc.
Playstyle is going to vary from player to player - and - various ships offer a wide berth of differing potential playstyles. Heck, just look at what the BOFF seating on this Patrol Escort Refit offers, eh?
Raptors having a cloak that Escorts do not - offers a difference in playstyle. The difference in how the +Defense is gained on the Risian Corvette as well as the difference in Subsystem Power Levels...offers different choices.
One can attempt to force their playstyle on a boat regardless.
Which is where one can see that it is defining characteristics which define the ships...it's not about role, it's not about playstyle, it's about stats.
That's a syllogistic fallacy - attempting to compare the Dreadnought Cruiser and Heavy Escort Carrier. The HEC is a subtype of Escort, while the Dreadnought Cruiser is not a subtype of Dreadnought. It is a subtype of Cruiser, much like the Dreadnought Carrier is a subtype of Carrier, and the Dreadnought Warbird is a subtype of Warbird.
If it's a syllogistic fallacy, where is the difference? The nature of that fallacy rests on a claim that there is in fact some difference between the two things being compared when the one the fallacy is apparently coming from is implying that there is none. If there is a good reason why the two can't be compared in this way, please, do tell us.
Let me try to understand here. Are you're implying that any one ship class can't be two or more types? Because there seems to be no evidence to support that assumption.
Are you implying that there's a difference between the way "Escort" and "Carrier" are presented in "Heavy Escort Carrier" than the way "Dreadnought" and "Warbird" are presented in "Dreadnought Warbird"? Because if there is a difference, I'm not seeing it.
Science class includes Nova and Nebula, nothing at all alike. Warbird includes T'varo and D'Deridex, nothing alike. Even the more restrictve Escort class includes the Defiant and the Armitage, or worse the new Patrol Refit, but they are wildly different.
Nova and Nebula are nothing alike, eh?
Science Commander?
3/3 Weapons?
+15 Auxiliary Power?
Subsystem Targeting and Sensor Analysis?
High Shield Modifier?
They're both going to have Secondary Deflectors?
Etc, etc, etc...the very things that define Science Vessels. But nothing alike, eh?
They do have their differences - just like other types of ships with defining stats have differences. Otherwise we'd only have a single ship for each.
But compare the Nebula to the Galaxy, eh?
Nebula does not have an Engineering Commander. Does not have 4/4 Weapons. Does not have +5 all Subsystem Power. Does not have the four Command Auras. Does not have the higher Hull. Like the Galaxy does not have the Science Commander, 3/3 Weapons, etc, etc, etc.
The T'varo is a Light Warbird while the D'deridex is a Warbird Battle Cruiser (yes, I believe this should be a Battle Cruiser Warbird). The defining element of the Warbird type is the Singularity Core. There are going to be different types of Warbirds though, just like there are different types of Science Vessels. However, all Warbirds have Singularity Cores and no non-Warbird has a Singularity Core. Is Warbird a much broader type than Escort or Cruiser? Yes, but at the same time - when you see a Light Warbird, Warbird, Heavy Warbird, Tactical Warbird, Warbird Battle Cruiser, Assault Warbird, Advanced Warbird, Guardian Warbird, Dreadnought Warbird, etc, etc, etc...you can pretty much spot the differences between them.
The only meaningful way to discuss ships here is by their role. The name is irrelevant. The size is irrelevant. The back-end classification is only partially relevant in the sense that it tells you what kind of special abilities are probably going to have.
You can DPS in almost any ship. Some are obviously better than others, but you can still DPS in almost any ship. To an extent, you can heal from any ship. You can tank in any ship.
Discussing ships based on role...well...how do you do that without discussing the stats of the ship which will come from that "back-end classification"...?
You're looking to DPS...how do you ignore the ship having 2x Tac Consoles vs. 4x Tac Consoles? You're looking to heal...how do you ignore a ship having nothing higher than Lt in Eng or Sci? You're looking to work some Evil Hoodoo - how do you ignore a lack of Sci stations and consoles?
If it's a syllogistic fallacy, where is the difference? The nature of that fallacy rests on a claim that there is in fact some difference between the two things being compared when the one the fallacy is apparently coming from is implying that there is none.
If you're implying that any one ship class can't be two or more types? Because there's no evidence to support that assumption.
Are you implying that there's a difference between the way "Escort" and "Carrier" are presented in "Heavy Escort Carrier" than the way "Dreadnought" and "Warbird" are presented in "Dreadnought Warbird"? Because if there is a difference, I'm not seeing it.
Just two things...
1) Escort is defined. Therefore Heavy Escort Carrier can be measured against that definition.
2) Dreadnought is not defined. Therefore you cannot measure Dreadnought Cruiser, Dreadnought Carrier, nor Dreadnought Warbird against that non-existent definition. However, since Cruiser, Carrier, and Warbird are - you can measure in that fashion.
It's that Dreadnought is simply not defined in any meaningful or even remotely unique manner. Look at a Galaxy-X, a Scimitar, and the JHDC...where does Dreadnought even come into play? We can see what separates the Dreadnought Cruiser from the Cruiser, Battle Cruiser, and Flight-Deck Cruiser. That's not the same thing that separates the Dreadnought Warbird from another Warbird. It's not the same thing that separates the Dreadnought Carrier from another Carrier. Admittedly, they had the opportunity to do so with the Galaxy-X revamp/reboot deal...but they massively dropped the ball there. I can sense drunk lurking around ready to unload on Cryptic for that...lol.
As for the console. Simply put, it's situational and devastating. I look forward to finding clusters a ships to use it.
Heh, devastating doesn't do it justice...geared right/timed right...it's pure slaughter. On the other hand, it can be a complete waste of a console slot. IMHO, they need to tweak it both up and down...fix the extremes and increase its overall usefulness without it being something the Undine wish they had on their planet killers, lol.
1) Escort is defined. Therefore Heavy Escort Carrier can be measured against that definition.
2) Dreadnought is not defined. Therefore you cannot measure Dreadnought Cruiser, Dreadnought Carrier, nor Dreadnought Warbird against that non-existent definition. However, since Cruiser, Carrier, and Warbird are - you can measure in that fashion.
It's that Dreadnought is simply not defined in any meaningful or even remotely unique manner. Look at a Galaxy-X, a Scimitar, and the JHDC...where does Dreadnought even come into play? We can see what separates the Dreadnought Cruiser from the Cruiser, Battle Cruiser, and Flight-Deck Cruiser. That's not the same thing that separates the Dreadnought Warbird from another Warbird. It's not the same thing that separates the Dreadnought Carrier from another Carrier. Admittedly, they had the opportunity to do so with the Galaxy-X revamp/reboot deal...but they massively dropped the ball there. I can sense drunk lurking around ready to unload on Cryptic for that...lol.
What separates their types is not their layout or functions. What separates their types is in fact their names. That is how we recognize ship types.
If your whole claim of a "syllogistic fallacy" depends on a false premise such as defining ships on what they can do before their ship titles, then it's patently wrong. Again, read this. Until an STO team member says otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that Dreadnoughts in no way have to be similar for "Dreadnought" to be counted as a ship type. Ship types are defined by their very use in the ship's title.
They are nothing alike in practice. One is agile and flimsy with LtCmdr Tac, the other is slow and lumbering with LtCmdr Engi. They have more in difference than they do in common. Your pedantry over the commonality doesnt make them behave the same.
What separates their types is not their layout or functions. What separates their types is in fact their names. That is how we recognize ship types.
The names come from their layouts and stats. The collective information from the stats is then given the name - and - we can use that name to refer to that collective information without having to say it all.
It's like a file folder with a label on it...the name of a ship. It's why we call cats cats and dogs dogs rather than cats dogs and dogs cats.
We don't call the Sovereign an Escort...we dont' call the Defiant a Sci Vessel...we don't call the Wells a Carrier.
They are nothing alike in practice. One is agile and flimsy with LtCmdr Tac, the other is slow and lumbering with LtCmdr Engi. They have more in difference than they do in common. Your pedantry over the commonality doesnt make them behave the same.
You're comparing their difference in maneuverability to everything that separates them from the rest of the ship types out there? Seriously...?
Discussing ships based on role...well...how do you do that without discussing the stats of the ship which will come from that "back-end classification"...?
You're looking to DPS...how do you ignore the ship having 2x Tac Consoles vs. 4x Tac Consoles? You're looking to heal...how do you ignore a ship having nothing higher than Lt in Eng or Sci? You're looking to work some Evil Hoodoo - how do you ignore a lack of Sci stations and consoles?
You're limiting yourself to the professions. Ships have battlefield roles that are supplemented by the the profession not defined by it.
EG, an Assault Craft is a role, it is the tip-of-the-spear, fast agile sharp and probably very fragile. If your target is more agile than you, you're doing it wrong. Can be served by frigate, corvette, raider, escort, science (nova), warbird (t'varo), etc.
It is hard to talk about role segmentation here because the game does not actually support them. EG, there is nothing in the game that differentiates between Cruiser and Battleship even though they should have significant role differences in-game. Classes here are a mess.
what is out of balance is the attention devs have to both the faction. How many ships have had feds in the last 3 years? how many ship the kdf? look at the store: how many ships have feds, how many kdf?
Everytime I try to persuade someone to play kdf, the answer I have is "I do not like it, kdf have a few old ships and no attention by devs". It can be wrong, but if so... why the general perception of kdf is "a lost faction"?
Eurialo, people like you never cease to amaze me. Everytime when one side gets a ship, what's the first thing they do. They whine, and they cry. Grow up! Again stated as before, the KDF has also had their own ships added. Lets see first the improvement of the Raider Class with Flank Bonus, then there is the Mogh Class as well to counteract the Avenger Class. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! After the FED side got the revised Dreadnaught Class all of the sudden you constantly hear that the Roms on KDF and KDF itself whine that, "Oh no they have ships that can cloak that is no fair." Come on already! Raider improvement, the Mogh, the fact you can have every Rom allied to the KDF with a clear and cut advantage with a Battle Cloak, many players on the KDF side are just whining all the time that they are going to lose the advantage of pwning in the PVP Warzones. Honestly, it simply comes down to how does one adapt. Just like all of us here are learning to adapt with Season 9. For the KDF they wanted to feel like they were gods to satisfy their ego and only now with everything being redone it's a blemish on their honor. BRILLIANT!
In the stats...that separate Escorts from Cruisers, from Science Vessels, etc, etc, etc. There are no defining stats for a Dreadnought.
Stats are irrelevant. If Cryptic released a KDF ship with the exact same stats as, say, an Advanced Heavy Cruiser, but called it a "Klingon Marauder", it would not be an Advanced Heavy Cruiser at all.
The names come from their layouts and stats. The collective information from the stats is then given the name - and - we can use that name to refer to that collective information without having to say it all.
It's like a file folder with a label on it...the name of a ship. It's why we call cats cats and dogs dogs rather than cats dogs and dogs cats.
We don't call the Sovereign an Escort...we dont' call the Defiant a Sci Vessel...we don't call the Wells a Carrier.
I think you have it backwards. You're assuming that the stats dictates what the ships are called. It is in fact the other way around. How we even know a certain set of stats are attributed to a certain type of ship is because of the ship name. We see "Science Vessel" and recognize the common elements in each, and then conclude that those attributes must be what elements Science Vessels have. We do not see the stats, then decide "This must be a Science Vessel because it shares stats with other things that Science Vessels have".
Why it's the former and not the latter is because ship titles convey a message, which is the very nature of text. Stats alone don't convey a message, because they're just stats. We can decipher what ships stats belong to because of the labels of existing ships. But the lack of common stats do not necessarily dictate that the labels must mean something different. That claim would need to be demonstrated, not asserted, unless it's from the STO team.
There is no reason why the term like "Dreadnought" should be treated differently than a term like "Escort".
That's wrong. Either a ship is a HEC or it isn't a HEC. The only ships that can be classified as Heavy Escort Carriers are the ones that have "Heavy Escort Carrier" in their titles. There are only two so far.
The Ar'kif is a Tactical Carrier Warbird. It's a Carrier, just like the HECs, but it's a Tactical Warbird, not a Heavy Escort. And the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier is a Dreadnought, not a Heavy Escort. The Jem'Hadar already has their HEC, and it's illogical to label their Dreadnought as one too.
No need to get emotional on this matter, by the way.
No, I meant what I said. Some posters are giving their own labels onto ships, and the other posters around here might not know what they're even talking about.
KDFs will probably never get a Heavy Escort Carrier because the Klingons don't have any playable Escorts. The closest I'd guess that they might get is a Heavy Raptor Carrier, and that I think would push it. The existing Heavy Raptor models don't look beefy enough to house fighters, IMO.
Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say that there were only two types of "Tactical Carriers", I pointed out that there are only two types of "Heavy Escort Carriers". The two terms are not synonymous.
Again Orangeitis you also fail to see the point. The Jem'Hadar is a Heavy Escort Carrier, the Ar'kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit also is a Tactical ship as a carrier hint the TACTICAL CARRIER WARBIRD RETROFIT.
Epic fail, sorry you spoiled yourself on that one Mr. Expert!
The Jem'Hadar ALSO have a Heavy Escort Carrier as well as a Dreadnaught Carrier. But then again you would be the expert to know such things if you thought this through on your own. BRILLIANT!
Even on the STO Wiki they compare the Romulan Ar'kif Tactical Warbird Carrier Retrofit to the Armitage Heavy Escort Carrier and indeed they stack close to one another with one having some advantages over the other.
Again fail on your spoiled fruit self with that one. BRILLIANT! And again who is getting emotional here? If logic was to dictate here that you are correct which honestly you are not in this debate. The reason the Klingons don't need a Heavy Escort Carrier is because already they have a clear cut advantage with the ships that they have. The KDF already has the Vo'Quv Carrier that is capable I said it, "CAPABLE" of launching B'rel Bird of Preys as well as KDF fighters. Then you have the Kar'Fi Battle Carrier that while it has a base turn of 8 degrees per second still can be geared as a tactical to a point. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! You also have the Orion Flight Deck Carriers and Flight Deck Cruisers. Already the KDF has what a total of what four carriers at their disposal? BRILLIANT!
Then take into calculation the Romulan faction factoring that this is KDF aligned of course there is the Scimitar, Ar'kif which understandably you were fussing about not being considered as an Escort Carrier when actually it is gives another two perks that the KDF side can have at their disposal clearly the KDF is just stacked out with carriers already. And also have a better proc to tanking as well as debuffing depending on the builds and tactics. And again why are you fussing over this Orange.
Hey sorry to get to the point Orange and cut the subject already but.....KNIFE!
Again Orangeitis you also fail to see the point. The Jem'Hadar is a Heavy Escort Carrier, the Ar'kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit also is a Tactical ship as a carrier hint the TACTICAL CARRIER WARBIRD RETROFIT.
Epic fail, sorry you spoiled yourself on that one Mr. Expert!
The Jem'Hadar ALSO have a Heavy Escort Carrier as well as a Dreadnaught Carrier. But then again you would be the expert to know such things if you thought this through on your own. BRILLIANT!
Even on the STO Wiki they compare the Romulan Ar'kif Tactical Warbird Carrier Retrofit to the Armitage Heavy Escort Carrier and indeed they stack close to one another with one having some advantages over the other.
Again fail on your spoiled fruit self with that one. BRILLIANT! And again who is getting emotional here? If logic was to dictate here that you are correct which honestly you are not in this debate. The reason the Klingons don't need a Heavy Escort Carrier is because already they have a clear cut advantage with the ships that they have. The KDF already has the Vo'Quv Carrier that is capable I said it, "CAPABLE" of launching B'rel Bird of Preys as well as KDF fighters. Then you have the Kar'Fi Battle Carrier that while it has a base turn of 8 degrees per second still can be geared as a tactical to a point. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! You also have the Orion Flight Deck Carriers and Flight Deck Cruisers. Already the KDF has what a total of what four carriers at their disposal? BRILLIANT!
Then take into calculation the Romulan faction factoring that this is KDF aligned of course there is the Scimitar, Ar'kif which understandably you were fussing about not being considered as an Escort Carrier when actually it is gives another two perks that the KDF side can have at their disposal clearly the KDF is just stacked out with carriers already. And also have a better proc to tanking as well as debuffing depending on the builds and tactics. And again why are you fussing over this Orange.
Hey sorry to get to the point Orange and cut the subject already but.....KNIFE!
I guess I did fail to see the point, because you're implying that "Heavy Escort Carrier" and "tactical Carrier" are synonymous. They are not. Hence the misunderstanding.
And again, I never claimed to be an expert on anything.
Stats are irrelevant. If Cryptic released a KDF ship with the exact same stats as, say, an Advanced Heavy Cruiser, but called it a "Klingon Marauder", it would not be an Advanced Heavy Cruiser at all.
The Orion Marauder does not have the same stats as an Advanced Heavy Cruiser though...does it? The Marauder is actually closest to the Star Cruiser.
Same Hull, Shield Mod, Console Layout, BOFF Stations, Weapons, Subsystem Power Bonus, Turn, Inertia...but the Marauder has slightly higher Impulse Mod, does not have Strategic Maneuvering nor Weapon System Efficiency, does have a Hangar along with Carrier Commands for it.
Tada...one is a Star Cruiser variant of the Standard Cruiser and one is a Flight-Deck Cruiser.
I think you have it backwards. You're assuming that the stats dictates what the ships are called. It is in fact the other way around. How we even know a certain set of stats are attributed to a certain type of ship is because of the ship name. We see "Science Vessel" and recognize the common elements in each, and then conclude that those attributes must be what elements Science Vessels have. We do not see the stats, then decide "This must be a Science Vessel because it shares stats with other things that Science Vessels have".
The train of thought there is mind-boggling. Giving something a name does not create it...we give names to things that have been created. We label things...we do not thing labels.
Why it's the former and not the latter is because ship titles convey a message, which is the very nature of text. Stats alone don't convey a message, because they're just stats. We can decipher what ships stats belong to because of the labels of existing ships. But the lack of common stats do not necessarily dictate that the labels must mean something different. That claim would need to be demonstrated, not asserted, unless it's from the STO team.
All that does is support applying the label to the stats. Anybody can take a look at the ships, their stats, their names and types, to see that with extreme exception...that they will match.
There is no reason why the term like "Dreadnought" should be treated differently than a term like "Escort".
Me: What's a Dreadnought?
You: It's a name.
Me: Meaning? Defining? What's a Dreadnought?
You: It's no different than an Escort.
Me: Great! So you can show me the stats showing how a Dreadnought is different from other ships like you can do with almost everything else?
You: Stats don't matter.
Me: Er...but iit's all right there plain as day.
You: Nah.
Me: Uh huh...
And this conversation is going nowhere...so I'm done with it.
You misread what I posted. I was saying that the Ar'kif is only available to KDF allied Romulans and not KDF standard toons, meaning toons such as Klingons, Gorn, Orions, KDF Alien etc. I wasn't meaning it wasn't available to Romulans allied with Feds, just that it can only be flown by Romulans and therefore is not a KDF ship it's a Romulan ship.
I also wasn't complaining, I was trying to clear up the difference between KDF ships and Romulan ships/lockbox ships.
My apologies, I was merely trying to support your point and clarify that the ships mentioned weren't actually KDF dedicated ships, but were in fact Romulan ships or lockbox ships.
The only thing that really bugs me about all of this is the fact that we've got 57 pages into this thread and there hasn't been a single Dev response to explain why they've taken this action on this ship instead of treating it the same way as they did for previous ship updates.
Okay again Khamseenair as I explained to Orange I shall again for you to hopefully understand. Otherwise, you're on your own. First off the thing about the KDF is they don't need another Carrier, they have the Vo'Quv, the Kar'Fi, the Orion Flight Deck Carriers/Cruisers. All those are about four in total all with debuff perks and tanking perks. Overall the KDF is stacked out with carriers and really don't need a Heavy Escort Carrier.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!
If you took time to understand which again also explaining why this thread is 57 pages long is because people like yourself want to continue to drag on the subject until someone's ego is satisfied with getting the last word.
What I was clarifying is that the Romulan ships allied to the KDF is a clear balance to fill in the gaps that the KDF needs. Why do you think that they made the Romulans decide to side either FED or KDF. They're the Swing Voter faction to balance out the game-play of KDF and also FED as well. So in truth this argument of new ships that the KDF needs or even "should" get is a clear and cut attempt to cry and whine on ships that the Federation gets to balance out the game even for the PVP itself which honestly if Klingons are suppose to be warriors that is for all intensive purposes.
Then riddle me this and riddle me that, why when the FED's get a ship, do these Bony Ridged Microbrained beings cry and whimp?
Simple in a Star Trek Klingon Academy Quote:
"Look around you, most of your peers have left and yet you are still here. It is the way things should be, the weak must give way to the strong."~Christopher Plummer as General Chang.
The Orion Marauder does not have the same stats as an Advanced Heavy Cruiser though...does it? The Marauder is actually closest to the Star Cruiser.
Same Hull, Shield Mod, Console Layout, BOFF Stations, Weapons, Subsystem Power Bonus, Turn, Inertia...but the Marauder has slightly higher Impulse Mod, does not have Strategic Maneuvering nor Weapon System Efficiency, does have a Hangar along with Carrier Commands for it.
Tada...one is a Star Cruiser variant of the Standard Cruiser and one is a Flight-Deck Cruiser.
The train of thought there is mind-boggling. Giving something a name does not create it...we give names to things that have been created. We label things...we do not thing labels.
That might be true if we the players have created and labeled them. But when you are the one looking at a thing that is already created and labeled, the logical approach is to go by the labels first, lest inaccurate stereotypes arise.
Did Cryptic make something, then label it? Honestly I haven't a clue how they create their ships. But it's irrelevant in this case. STO's ships are exactly what Cryptic wants them to be.
"Dreadnought" is a ship type because it's a common word in the titles of several ships. And yes, "Heavy ships" technically are as well.
All that does is support applying the label to the stats. Anybody can take a look at the ships, their stats, their names and types, to see that with extreme exception...that they will match.
Matching is irrelevant in the case of what they're named. It's less confusing to us that most ship types do happen to match their functions, but sometimes they don't. And in those cases, we get instances like your argument, where 'if they don't match, it must be because the ship types aren't really a ship type at all'.
Me: What's a Dreadnought?
You: It's a name.
Me: Meaning? Defining? What's a Dreadnought?
You: It's no different than an Escort.
Me: Great! So you can show me the stats showing how a Dreadnought is different from other ships like you can do with almost everything else?
You: Stats don't matter.
Me: Er...but iit's all right there plain as day.
You: Nah.
Me: Uh huh...
And this conversation is going nowhere...so I'm done with it.
This is a prime example of a strawman. You're asserting that ships MUST have similar stats to count as a ship type. Again, the ship types are defined with text, not configuration. I gave you my explanation(nd repeatedly pointed this out), but you're ignoring it and insisting that stats are the most important.
I've already refuted your point. You repeating it doesn't help your cause.
Okay again Khamseenair as I explained to Orange I shall again for you to hopefully understand. Otherwise, you're on your own. First off the thing about the KDF is they don't need another Carrier, they have the Vo'Quv, the Kar'Fi, the Orion Flight Deck Carriers/Cruisers. All those are about four in total all with debuff perks and tanking perks. Overall the KDF is stacked out with carriers and really don't need a Heavy Escort Carrier.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!
If you took time to understand which again also explaining why this thread is 57 pages long is because people like yourself want to continue to drag on the subject until someone's ego is satisfied with getting the last word.
What I was clarifying is that the Romulan ships allied to the KDF is a clear balance to fill in the gaps that the KDF needs. Why do you think that they made the Romulans decide to side either FED or KDF. They're the Swing Voter faction to balance out the game-play of KDF and also FED as well. So in truth this argument of new ships that the KDF needs or even "should" get is a clear and cut attempt to cry and whine on ships that the Federation gets to balance out the game even for the PVP itself which honestly if Klingons are suppose to be warriors that is for all intensive purposes.
Then riddle me this and riddle me that, why when the FED's get a ship, do these Bony Ridged Microbrained beings cry and whimp?
Simple in a Star Trek Klingon Academy Quote:
"Look around you, most of your peers have left and yet you are still here. It is the way things should be, the weak must give way to the strong."~Christopher Plummer as General Chang.
BRILLIANT!
You yelling and getting emotional doesn't make you more right.
There are actually three types of what you could classify HEAVY ESCORT CARRIERS. The first yes is the Armitage the FED Tact Carrier, then on the Jem'Hadar side yes you have both the Dreadnaught Carrier......and also the Heavy Escort Carrier. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! Stay around for the next so many minutes and I will throw in THE ROMULAN AR'KIF TACTICAL CARRIER.
Um, it would be wrong (imho) to classify things as you suggest there. Ignoring the obvious issue of including the JHDC in the matter, you're trying to lump together the following three ships:
Heavy Escort Carrier
Jem'Hadar Escort Carrier
Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit
Warbirds aren't Escorts.
Are those three Tac heavy ships with a hangar? Cmdr Tac and at least 4x Tac Consoles? Sure. Probably why you included the JHDC in that as well...the Cmdr Tac and at least 4x Tac Consoles. Then again, the Scimitar variant of the Dreadnought Warbird fits in there as well.
While I personally believe the issue with the JHEC not having the +10% Bonus Defense is a bug, the differences between the other boats and the HEC stand out like a conference of sore thumbs.
So calling them HEC's...is kind of silly.
Could one argue that the KDF lacks a Tac heavy ship with a hangar? Certainly! I do!
But it would likely be a Heavy Raptor Carrier, Tactical Carrier Raptor, or maybe even Flight-Deck Raptor...and while one might draw comparisons to a HEC - it wouldn't be a HEC.
I guess I did fail to see the point, because you're implying that "Heavy Escort Carrier" and "tactical Carrier" are synonymous. They are not. Hence the misunderstanding.
And again, I never claimed to be an expert on anything.
As so finally IT speaks.
The issue you STILL fail to understand in the context as a whole in the misunderstanding is that Heavy Escort Carrier, and Tactical Carrier Warbird are not synonymous in wording.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!
What the two do share in common Orange is their purpose as a ship.
By definition as the purpose that both ships serve as are a mirror of one another both in functionality, and strategically in comparison to one another that makes them both......
wait for it................
synonymous with one another as ships. The Ar'kif Tactical Warbird Retrofit is the Romulan version of the Armitage Heavy Escort Carrier. Which either way still could never understand why everyone is fussing about it because the HEC has one Cmdr tactical slot, one Lt. tactical slot, and one Ensign tactical slot. Unless they want to fuss about the Torpedo Point Defense which is yes good for PVE and PVP but it is a win win lose lose flip of the coin being once used there is a two minute cooldown on the Torpedo Point Defense.
On the side note however, The Arkif Tactical Warbird Retrofit yes does have the Focused Singularity Module which practically puts the ship into Annihilation Mode as it charges up to full capacity makes the ship increase more and more in DPS until it is depleted on charge. Plus that module also gives it an Annihilation Beam which to me kind of reminds me of the Phaser Lance to a point or the Advanced Phaser from Klingon Academy. Which means major DPS.
By definition as the purpose that both ships serve as are a mirror of one another both in functionality, and strategically in comparison to one another that makes them both......
They share some commonality in functionality, but they do not mirror one another. Nor are they unique examples of the strategic value that they offer. Thus nothing exists by which one can make the claim that the Ar'Kif s a HEC.
BTW, do you find it funny how much orange is arguing with you the same point he's arguing against me...? It's one of those things where we should probably both just walk away from the discussion instead of feeding him...
Um, it would be wrong (imho) to classify things as you suggest there. Ignoring the obvious issue of including the JHDC in the matter, you're trying to lump together the following three ships:
Heavy Escort Carrier
Jem'Hadar Escort Carrier
Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit
Warbirds aren't Escorts.
Are those three Tac heavy ships with a hangar? Cmdr Tac and at least 4x Tac Consoles? Sure. Probably why you included the JHDC in that as well...the Cmdr Tac and at least 4x Tac Consoles. Then again, the Scimitar variant of the Dreadnought Warbird fits in there as well.
While I personally believe the issue with the JHEC not having the +10% Bonus Defense is a bug, the differences between the other boats and the HEC stand out like a conference of sore thumbs.
So calling them HEC's...is kind of silly.
Could one argue that the KDF lacks a Tac heavy ship with a hangar? Certainly! I do!
But it would likely be a Heavy Raptor Carrier, Tactical Carrier Raptor, or maybe even Flight-Deck Raptor...and while one might draw comparisons to a HEC - it wouldn't be a HEC.
Ah another challenger enters the Pit of Doom.
No again you fail to comprehend that I try to compress all three as one worded entity.
FAIL!
What the issue is the purpose that the Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier, the Armitage Heavy Escort Carrier, and finally the Ar'kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit all three are a mirror of one another. It doesn't matter by name itself.
"A rose by any other name smells so sweet."
Well in your case your roses VirusDancer smell like as Outcast once said it, "Ewww ewwwwww!"
You take the context of something and make the assumption without taking serious consideration that it is not the name per say. But the purpose of the function and strategic value of the ship itself that all three mirror together.
Again just because it doesn't have ESCORT in the name doesn't mean it serves the same function compared and stacked to the other.
Which also comes to a side note.
NOTE: Why are we even arguing over Escort Carriers, Heavy Escort Carriers, and why KDF need Escort Carriers when clearly they have like four carriers with better specs to what the FEDS have when this is all over the new FED Patrol Escort.
Comments
edit--forgot the new Raider class
Battleship, Destroyer, Dreadnought, Frigate, etc., dont mean anything other than "maybe it plays this role"
Ship classes are really screwy in this game.
But that doesn't change the fact that the ships designated as Dreadnoughts are in fact Dreadnoughts, even if they are also simultaneously a Cruiser, a Warbird, or a Carrier as well.
Edit: Also, "Heavy" is an adjective, while "Dreadnought" is a noun. A more valid statement would be "I fly a heavy ship".
That's an understatement =p
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I don't think that ship classes are all that screwy in the game...for most ships, even without being given the name, if you're given the stats of the ship - you've got a damn good chance of guessing the classification that Cryptic gave it...because it will line up with the stats.
A noun used before another noun to modify the second noun is a noun being used as an adjective.
Dreadnought in of itself is meaningless in the context of ship discussions - it says nothing about the ship without the actual type of ship. There are no unique characteristics amongst Dreadnought Cruisers, Dreadnought Carriers, and Dreadnought Warbirds.
They could have just as easily called them Blue Cruisers, Blue Carriers, and Blue Warbirds.
The term Dreadnought cannot stand on its own as a noun - as it has no definition. Thus, it functions purely as an adjective in this case.
It's only when you combine Dreadnought with another, that the combined terms have definition. A Dreadnought Cruiser is different from a Battle Cruiser, etc, etc, etc.
Somebody saying they fly a Dreadnought is not saying anything...
True, but you were talking about using the adjectives alone, correct? Alone, the "Dreadnought" portion of "Federation Dreadnought Cruiser" isn't an adjective, it becomes a noun. In the same context, the "Escort" portion of "Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier" when used alone also becomes a noun. The "Federation Dreadnought Cruiser" is a Dreadnought as much as the "Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier" is an Escort.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
The only meaningful way to discuss ships here is by their role. The name is irrelevant. The size is irrelevant. The back-end classification is only partially relevant in the sense that it tells you what kind of special abilities are probably going to have.
I am loving the new Escort.
The rear-firing cannon, with it's hard-wired RF1 was at first (i thought) silly. I am now firmly in the the 'THIS IS COOL' camp. Alpha strike and if it isn't dead, pass and fire.
As for the console. Simply put, it's situational and devastating. I look forward to finding clusters a ships to use it.
Thumbs up !
Not only that, IMO it's a pretty nice anti-flanking gun~
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Role, eh? Roles are simply functions that any ship could attempt to perform. A Bortasqu' could perform the role of Escort...in escorting another ship or group of ships. Ship classifications can be based upon size, intended role(s), etc, etc, etc.
Getting into gaming - MMOs - you're going to be looking at roles like Damage, Tank, Healer, Support, etc, etc, etc.
Playstyle is going to vary from player to player - and - various ships offer a wide berth of differing potential playstyles. Heck, just look at what the BOFF seating on this Patrol Escort Refit offers, eh?
Raptors having a cloak that Escorts do not - offers a difference in playstyle. The difference in how the +Defense is gained on the Risian Corvette as well as the difference in Subsystem Power Levels...offers different choices.
One can attempt to force their playstyle on a boat regardless.
Which is where one can see that it is defining characteristics which define the ships...it's not about role, it's not about playstyle, it's about stats.
That's a syllogistic fallacy - attempting to compare the Dreadnought Cruiser and Heavy Escort Carrier. The HEC is a subtype of Escort, while the Dreadnought Cruiser is not a subtype of Dreadnought. It is a subtype of Cruiser, much like the Dreadnought Carrier is a subtype of Carrier, and the Dreadnought Warbird is a subtype of Warbird.
If it's a syllogistic fallacy, where is the difference? The nature of that fallacy rests on a claim that there is in fact some difference between the two things being compared when the one the fallacy is apparently coming from is implying that there is none. If there is a good reason why the two can't be compared in this way, please, do tell us.
Let me try to understand here. Are you're implying that any one ship class can't be two or more types? Because there seems to be no evidence to support that assumption.
Are you implying that there's a difference between the way "Escort" and "Carrier" are presented in "Heavy Escort Carrier" than the way "Dreadnought" and "Warbird" are presented in "Dreadnought Warbird"? Because if there is a difference, I'm not seeing it.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Nova and Nebula are nothing alike, eh?
Science Commander?
3/3 Weapons?
+15 Auxiliary Power?
Subsystem Targeting and Sensor Analysis?
High Shield Modifier?
They're both going to have Secondary Deflectors?
Etc, etc, etc...the very things that define Science Vessels. But nothing alike, eh?
They do have their differences - just like other types of ships with defining stats have differences. Otherwise we'd only have a single ship for each.
But compare the Nebula to the Galaxy, eh?
Nebula does not have an Engineering Commander. Does not have 4/4 Weapons. Does not have +5 all Subsystem Power. Does not have the four Command Auras. Does not have the higher Hull. Like the Galaxy does not have the Science Commander, 3/3 Weapons, etc, etc, etc.
The T'varo is a Light Warbird while the D'deridex is a Warbird Battle Cruiser (yes, I believe this should be a Battle Cruiser Warbird). The defining element of the Warbird type is the Singularity Core. There are going to be different types of Warbirds though, just like there are different types of Science Vessels. However, all Warbirds have Singularity Cores and no non-Warbird has a Singularity Core. Is Warbird a much broader type than Escort or Cruiser? Yes, but at the same time - when you see a Light Warbird, Warbird, Heavy Warbird, Tactical Warbird, Warbird Battle Cruiser, Assault Warbird, Advanced Warbird, Guardian Warbird, Dreadnought Warbird, etc, etc, etc...you can pretty much spot the differences between them.
You can DPS in almost any ship. Some are obviously better than others, but you can still DPS in almost any ship. To an extent, you can heal from any ship. You can tank in any ship.
Discussing ships based on role...well...how do you do that without discussing the stats of the ship which will come from that "back-end classification"...?
You're looking to DPS...how do you ignore the ship having 2x Tac Consoles vs. 4x Tac Consoles? You're looking to heal...how do you ignore a ship having nothing higher than Lt in Eng or Sci? You're looking to work some Evil Hoodoo - how do you ignore a lack of Sci stations and consoles?
Just two things...
1) Escort is defined. Therefore Heavy Escort Carrier can be measured against that definition.
2) Dreadnought is not defined. Therefore you cannot measure Dreadnought Cruiser, Dreadnought Carrier, nor Dreadnought Warbird against that non-existent definition. However, since Cruiser, Carrier, and Warbird are - you can measure in that fashion.
It's that Dreadnought is simply not defined in any meaningful or even remotely unique manner. Look at a Galaxy-X, a Scimitar, and the JHDC...where does Dreadnought even come into play? We can see what separates the Dreadnought Cruiser from the Cruiser, Battle Cruiser, and Flight-Deck Cruiser. That's not the same thing that separates the Dreadnought Warbird from another Warbird. It's not the same thing that separates the Dreadnought Carrier from another Carrier. Admittedly, they had the opportunity to do so with the Galaxy-X revamp/reboot deal...but they massively dropped the ball there. I can sense drunk lurking around ready to unload on Cryptic for that...lol.
Heh, devastating doesn't do it justice...geared right/timed right...it's pure slaughter. On the other hand, it can be a complete waste of a console slot. IMHO, they need to tweak it both up and down...fix the extremes and increase its overall usefulness without it being something the Undine wish they had on their planet killers, lol.
What separates their types is not their layout or functions. What separates their types is in fact their names. That is how we recognize ship types.
If your whole claim of a "syllogistic fallacy" depends on a false premise such as defining ships on what they can do before their ship titles, then it's patently wrong. Again, read this. Until an STO team member says otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that Dreadnoughts in no way have to be similar for "Dreadnought" to be counted as a ship type. Ship types are defined by their very use in the ship's title.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
In the stats...that separate Escorts from Cruisers, from Science Vessels, etc, etc, etc. There are no defining stats for a Dreadnought.
The names come from their layouts and stats. The collective information from the stats is then given the name - and - we can use that name to refer to that collective information without having to say it all.
It's like a file folder with a label on it...the name of a ship. It's why we call cats cats and dogs dogs rather than cats dogs and dogs cats.
We don't call the Sovereign an Escort...we dont' call the Defiant a Sci Vessel...we don't call the Wells a Carrier.
You're comparing their difference in maneuverability to everything that separates them from the rest of the ship types out there? Seriously...?
EG, an Assault Craft is a role, it is the tip-of-the-spear, fast agile sharp and probably very fragile. If your target is more agile than you, you're doing it wrong. Can be served by frigate, corvette, raider, escort, science (nova), warbird (t'varo), etc.
It is hard to talk about role segmentation here because the game does not actually support them. EG, there is nothing in the game that differentiates between Cruiser and Battleship even though they should have significant role differences in-game. Classes here are a mess.
Eurialo, people like you never cease to amaze me. Everytime when one side gets a ship, what's the first thing they do. They whine, and they cry. Grow up! Again stated as before, the KDF has also had their own ships added. Lets see first the improvement of the Raider Class with Flank Bonus, then there is the Mogh Class as well to counteract the Avenger Class. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! After the FED side got the revised Dreadnaught Class all of the sudden you constantly hear that the Roms on KDF and KDF itself whine that, "Oh no they have ships that can cloak that is no fair." Come on already! Raider improvement, the Mogh, the fact you can have every Rom allied to the KDF with a clear and cut advantage with a Battle Cloak, many players on the KDF side are just whining all the time that they are going to lose the advantage of pwning in the PVP Warzones. Honestly, it simply comes down to how does one adapt. Just like all of us here are learning to adapt with Season 9. For the KDF they wanted to feel like they were gods to satisfy their ego and only now with everything being redone it's a blemish on their honor. BRILLIANT!
I think you have it backwards. You're assuming that the stats dictates what the ships are called. It is in fact the other way around. How we even know a certain set of stats are attributed to a certain type of ship is because of the ship name. We see "Science Vessel" and recognize the common elements in each, and then conclude that those attributes must be what elements Science Vessels have. We do not see the stats, then decide "This must be a Science Vessel because it shares stats with other things that Science Vessels have".
Why it's the former and not the latter is because ship titles convey a message, which is the very nature of text. Stats alone don't convey a message, because they're just stats. We can decipher what ships stats belong to because of the labels of existing ships. But the lack of common stats do not necessarily dictate that the labels must mean something different. That claim would need to be demonstrated, not asserted, unless it's from the STO team.
There is no reason why the term like "Dreadnought" should be treated differently than a term like "Escort".
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Again Orangeitis you also fail to see the point. The Jem'Hadar is a Heavy Escort Carrier, the Ar'kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit also is a Tactical ship as a carrier hint the TACTICAL CARRIER WARBIRD RETROFIT.
Epic fail, sorry you spoiled yourself on that one Mr. Expert!
The Jem'Hadar ALSO have a Heavy Escort Carrier as well as a Dreadnaught Carrier. But then again you would be the expert to know such things if you thought this through on your own. BRILLIANT!
Even on the STO Wiki they compare the Romulan Ar'kif Tactical Warbird Carrier Retrofit to the Armitage Heavy Escort Carrier and indeed they stack close to one another with one having some advantages over the other.
Again fail on your spoiled fruit self with that one. BRILLIANT! And again who is getting emotional here? If logic was to dictate here that you are correct which honestly you are not in this debate. The reason the Klingons don't need a Heavy Escort Carrier is because already they have a clear cut advantage with the ships that they have. The KDF already has the Vo'Quv Carrier that is capable I said it, "CAPABLE" of launching B'rel Bird of Preys as well as KDF fighters. Then you have the Kar'Fi Battle Carrier that while it has a base turn of 8 degrees per second still can be geared as a tactical to a point. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! You also have the Orion Flight Deck Carriers and Flight Deck Cruisers. Already the KDF has what a total of what four carriers at their disposal? BRILLIANT!
Then take into calculation the Romulan faction factoring that this is KDF aligned of course there is the Scimitar, Ar'kif which understandably you were fussing about not being considered as an Escort Carrier when actually it is gives another two perks that the KDF side can have at their disposal clearly the KDF is just stacked out with carriers already. And also have a better proc to tanking as well as debuffing depending on the builds and tactics. And again why are you fussing over this Orange.
Hey sorry to get to the point Orange and cut the subject already but.....KNIFE!
And again, I never claimed to be an expert on anything.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
The Orion Marauder does not have the same stats as an Advanced Heavy Cruiser though...does it? The Marauder is actually closest to the Star Cruiser.
Same Hull, Shield Mod, Console Layout, BOFF Stations, Weapons, Subsystem Power Bonus, Turn, Inertia...but the Marauder has slightly higher Impulse Mod, does not have Strategic Maneuvering nor Weapon System Efficiency, does have a Hangar along with Carrier Commands for it.
Tada...one is a Star Cruiser variant of the Standard Cruiser and one is a Flight-Deck Cruiser.
Stats...define.
The train of thought there is mind-boggling. Giving something a name does not create it...we give names to things that have been created. We label things...we do not thing labels.
All that does is support applying the label to the stats. Anybody can take a look at the ships, their stats, their names and types, to see that with extreme exception...that they will match.
Me: What's a Dreadnought?
You: It's a name.
Me: Meaning? Defining? What's a Dreadnought?
You: It's no different than an Escort.
Me: Great! So you can show me the stats showing how a Dreadnought is different from other ships like you can do with almost everything else?
You: Stats don't matter.
Me: Er...but iit's all right there plain as day.
You: Nah.
Me: Uh huh...
And this conversation is going nowhere...so I'm done with it.
Okay again Khamseenair as I explained to Orange I shall again for you to hopefully understand. Otherwise, you're on your own. First off the thing about the KDF is they don't need another Carrier, they have the Vo'Quv, the Kar'Fi, the Orion Flight Deck Carriers/Cruisers. All those are about four in total all with debuff perks and tanking perks. Overall the KDF is stacked out with carriers and really don't need a Heavy Escort Carrier.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!
If you took time to understand which again also explaining why this thread is 57 pages long is because people like yourself want to continue to drag on the subject until someone's ego is satisfied with getting the last word.
What I was clarifying is that the Romulan ships allied to the KDF is a clear balance to fill in the gaps that the KDF needs. Why do you think that they made the Romulans decide to side either FED or KDF. They're the Swing Voter faction to balance out the game-play of KDF and also FED as well. So in truth this argument of new ships that the KDF needs or even "should" get is a clear and cut attempt to cry and whine on ships that the Federation gets to balance out the game even for the PVP itself which honestly if Klingons are suppose to be warriors that is for all intensive purposes.
Then riddle me this and riddle me that, why when the FED's get a ship, do these Bony Ridged Microbrained beings cry and whimp?
Simple in a Star Trek Klingon Academy Quote:
"Look around you, most of your peers have left and yet you are still here. It is the way things should be, the weak must give way to the strong."~Christopher Plummer as General Chang.
BRILLIANT!
NOT!
Where do they force you to by the ship? Is there an ongoing contract that says you must buy it?
That might be true if we the players have created and labeled them. But when you are the one looking at a thing that is already created and labeled, the logical approach is to go by the labels first, lest inaccurate stereotypes arise.
Did Cryptic make something, then label it? Honestly I haven't a clue how they create their ships. But it's irrelevant in this case. STO's ships are exactly what Cryptic wants them to be.
"Dreadnought" is a ship type because it's a common word in the titles of several ships. And yes, "Heavy ships" technically are as well.
Matching is irrelevant in the case of what they're named. It's less confusing to us that most ship types do happen to match their functions, but sometimes they don't. And in those cases, we get instances like your argument, where 'if they don't match, it must be because the ship types aren't really a ship type at all'.
This is a prime example of a strawman. You're asserting that ships MUST have similar stats to count as a ship type. Again, the ship types are defined with text, not configuration. I gave you my explanation(nd repeatedly pointed this out), but you're ignoring it and insisting that stats are the most important.
I've already refuted your point. You repeating it doesn't help your cause.
You yelling and getting emotional doesn't make you more right.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Um, it would be wrong (imho) to classify things as you suggest there. Ignoring the obvious issue of including the JHDC in the matter, you're trying to lump together the following three ships:
Heavy Escort Carrier
Jem'Hadar Escort Carrier
Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit
Warbirds aren't Escorts.
Are those three Tac heavy ships with a hangar? Cmdr Tac and at least 4x Tac Consoles? Sure. Probably why you included the JHDC in that as well...the Cmdr Tac and at least 4x Tac Consoles. Then again, the Scimitar variant of the Dreadnought Warbird fits in there as well.
While I personally believe the issue with the JHEC not having the +10% Bonus Defense is a bug, the differences between the other boats and the HEC stand out like a conference of sore thumbs.
So calling them HEC's...is kind of silly.
Could one argue that the KDF lacks a Tac heavy ship with a hangar? Certainly! I do!
But it would likely be a Heavy Raptor Carrier, Tactical Carrier Raptor, or maybe even Flight-Deck Raptor...and while one might draw comparisons to a HEC - it wouldn't be a HEC.
As so finally IT speaks.
The issue you STILL fail to understand in the context as a whole in the misunderstanding is that Heavy Escort Carrier, and Tactical Carrier Warbird are not synonymous in wording.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!
What the two do share in common Orange is their purpose as a ship.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ar%27Kif_Tactical_Carrier_Warbird_Retrofit
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Heavy_Escort_Carrier
By definition as the purpose that both ships serve as are a mirror of one another both in functionality, and strategically in comparison to one another that makes them both......
wait for it................
synonymous with one another as ships. The Ar'kif Tactical Warbird Retrofit is the Romulan version of the Armitage Heavy Escort Carrier. Which either way still could never understand why everyone is fussing about it because the HEC has one Cmdr tactical slot, one Lt. tactical slot, and one Ensign tactical slot. Unless they want to fuss about the Torpedo Point Defense which is yes good for PVE and PVP but it is a win win lose lose flip of the coin being once used there is a two minute cooldown on the Torpedo Point Defense.
On the side note however, The Arkif Tactical Warbird Retrofit yes does have the Focused Singularity Module which practically puts the ship into Annihilation Mode as it charges up to full capacity makes the ship increase more and more in DPS until it is depleted on charge. Plus that module also gives it an Annihilation Beam which to me kind of reminds me of the Phaser Lance to a point or the Advanced Phaser from Klingon Academy. Which means major DPS.
But again that's just me. BRILLIANT!
No, you haven't. Simply repeating your failure to do so over and over doesn't change that.
They share some commonality in functionality, but they do not mirror one another. Nor are they unique examples of the strategic value that they offer. Thus nothing exists by which one can make the claim that the Ar'Kif s a HEC.
BTW, do you find it funny how much orange is arguing with you the same point he's arguing against me...? It's one of those things where we should probably both just walk away from the discussion instead of feeding him...
Ah another challenger enters the Pit of Doom.
No again you fail to comprehend that I try to compress all three as one worded entity.
FAIL!
What the issue is the purpose that the Jem'Hadar Heavy Escort Carrier, the Armitage Heavy Escort Carrier, and finally the Ar'kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit all three are a mirror of one another. It doesn't matter by name itself.
"A rose by any other name smells so sweet."
Well in your case your roses VirusDancer smell like as Outcast once said it, "Ewww ewwwwww!"
You take the context of something and make the assumption without taking serious consideration that it is not the name per say. But the purpose of the function and strategic value of the ship itself that all three mirror together.
Again just because it doesn't have ESCORT in the name doesn't mean it serves the same function compared and stacked to the other.
Which also comes to a side note.
NOTE: Why are we even arguing over Escort Carriers, Heavy Escort Carriers, and why KDF need Escort Carriers when clearly they have like four carriers with better specs to what the FEDS have when this is all over the new FED Patrol Escort.
Focus people focus, be one with the tree!
BRILLIANT!