We need a C-Store Raptor-Carrier!!!

floppytechie

Imo, title speaks for it. We have no tier 5 cstore raptor, let alone a ship equivalent to the arkif or the Armitage. I need an escort carrier for my kdf tac, and before anyone points the jhec, i already have it on another char, so no pkint getting it again. Thus i propose Cryptic make a tier 5 version of the free raptors available;the textures and models already are present and Jor'khang gets her escort carrier raptor. Everybody wins


I propose that we use the Pach raptor model, it is quite pleasant to look at and has a nice enough crew complement for carrier duty. . Here is what i thought the stats would be:

Pach Raptor - Carrier Refit

Hull: 33500
Shields: 0.95
Turn :12
Impulse : 0.16

Boff seating : Cmdr. Tac, lt. Cmdr Tac, Lt Sci, Lt. Engi, ens Uni

Console : 4 tac, 4 engi, 2 sci

+15 Weapon power
Klingon Standard cloak

1 hanger bay - Equipped with shield repair drones


The engi uni allows some play room for an extra engi team, or a sci buff or debuff, or just more pew power. The 4 engi console can be set up for tank or filled with a ****load of uni consoles. (i find that the voth spatial charge console goes pretty well with raptors)

As for a console, i really have no idea... Maybe a power setting boost?


So? Thoughts?

orangeitis

How about we not make Raptors to be clones of Escorts? They need their own thing.

zipagat

Raptors do need some work though they are very much escorts just less good currently. Maybe then can add something similar to what science ships have in sensor analysis say tactical analysis since Raptors are supposed to be a scout vessel all be it a very well armed and armed one.

stofsk

I have a counter proposal

How about a c-store Bird-of-Prey, let's call it a Hegh'ta Retrofit, with a Fleet version that comes with the FSM discount, that instead of having a 'hangar' has wingmates of fellow Birds-of-prey.

It would work kinda-sorta like hangar pets do, but won't be from a hangar. Or make it a console like the MVAM's console or saucer/chevron separation, but your ship doesn't separate. It just calls in wing men and your ship is the squadron lead. Instead of a 'hangar launch' animation or separation animation, you'd instead have a 'warp in' or 'decloak' animation.

No need to make a Raptor with a tacked on hangar bay, because this would essentially fulfill that role. It keeps the faction flavour by making BoPs more unique. It fits with canon as we've seen BoPs work together in small squads like that ('Yesterday's Enterprise', Kurn is himself a squadron commander and he captain's a BoP, there's a couple episodes of DS9 that has this as well, the one with Kor in S7 IIRC). It shouldn't be that hard to make a new model of Hegh'ta, but ideally it should really apply to every BoP of endgame level.

Potential criticism: Too OP? Well that might fly, if it weren't for the facts BoPs are the most under powered ship type in the game. THey have the lowest hull, they have the lowest shielding, they have one less boff slot than most any other ship, they only have 6 weapon slots and no 5 fore variant or 5 tac console variant either. The BoP wing mates are still just pets, with all the limitations that implies.

orangeitis

zipagat wrote: »

Raptors do need some work though they are very much escorts just less good currently. Maybe then can add something similar to what science ships have in sensor analysis say tactical analysis since Raptors are supposed to be a scout vessel all be it a very well armed and armed one.

Demonstrate your claim.

Note that the NPC "Raptor Escort" is an "escort-level" NPC, not an Escort-type starship, just as the NPC Vo'Quv is a Dreadnough-level NPC, not a Dreadnought-type starship.

stofsk wrote: »

I have a counter proposal

How about a c-store Bird-of-Prey, let's call it a Hegh'ta Retrofit, with a Fleet version that comes with the FSM discount, that instead of having a 'hangar' has wingmates of fellow Birds-of-prey.

It would work kinda-sorta like hangar pets do, but won't be from a hangar. Or make it a console like the MVAM's console or saucer/chevron separation, but your ship doesn't separate. It just calls in wing men and your ship is the squadron lead. Instead of a 'hangar launch' animation or separation animation, you'd instead have a 'warp in' or 'decloak' animation.

I had a similar idea once. Sort of.

A Klingon Science Vessel that could split into 3 BoPs.They would be connected by primary hull in a triangular formation and their wings would fold in so the complete ship looks like it has 3 wings. After they split, each BoP's wings would fold downwards in traditional BoP fashion. The BOFF layout would basically look like the Plesh Brek's except with a Cmdr Sci instead of a Cmdr Tac.

I do like the idea of a Hegh'ta refit though.

zipagat

orangeitis wrote: »

Demonstrate your claim.

Raptors and Escorts are basically the same just with different handling characteristics

The Fleet Defiant and the Fleet Qin have identical BO layouts but differ in that the Qin has a bit more hull/shields and a better shield regen. While the Defiant has a better Console layout (5 tact vs 4) and has a better turn rate and inertia. (also makes it more useful as an escort)

If you changed the skin on the Qin though to a Federation ship it could quite easily pass as a Escort without changing a thing.

kriskringle3

The game is trying to stay true to the "Star Trek Canon", or in effect the "Holy Bible" of the Gene Roddenberry legacy. So making something that strays too far from this most likely will never occur.

The BOP is one of the smallest and most agile ships in the game. Hell, you even have BOP hanger pets. So to put a hanger on something like this should be out of the question. Wanting, and having, are two different things.

orangeitis

zipagat wrote: »

Raptors and Escorts are basically the same just with different handling characteristics

Irrelevant. Their configuration and how they function has nothing to do with what type of ship they are. Escorts are Escorts. Playable Raptors are not Escorts.

kriskringle3 wrote: »

The game is trying to stay true to the "Star Trek Canon", or in effect the "Holy Bible" of the Gene Roddenberry legacy. So making something that strays too far from this most likely will never occur.

The BOP is one of the smallest and most agile ships in the game. Hell, you even have BOP hanger pets. So to put a hanger on something like this should be out of the question. Wanting, and having, are two different things.

Frickin' dinosaurs with frickin' lasers attached to their frickin' heads. 'Nuff said.

Granted, that is completely consistent with the main Star Trek continuity, but I doubt that was in Gene's vision.

davidwford

zipagat wrote: »

Raptors do need some work though they are very much escorts just less good currently. Maybe then can add something similar to what science ships have in sensor analysis say tactical analysis since Raptors are supposed to be a scout vessel all be it a very well armed and armed one.

I like that idea! Give ALL Raptors sensor analysis and make the T3 and T4 Raptors have fleet refits.

kriskringle3 wrote: »

The game is trying to stay true to the "Star Trek Canon", or in effect the "Holy Bible" of the Gene Roddenberry legacy. So making something that strays too far from this most likely will never occur.

The BOP is one of the smallest and most agile ships in the game. Hell, you even have BOP hanger pets. So to put a hanger on something like this should be out of the question. Wanting, and having, are two different things.

The "Star Trek Canon" went out the window as soon as they allowed players to fly non-factions ships, starting with the Galor.

virusdancer

davidwford wrote: »

The "Star Trek Canon" went out the window as soon as they allowed players to fly non-factions ships, starting with the Galor.

They didn't put the whales in the Enterprise...

zipagat

orangeitis wrote: »

Irrelevant. Their configuration and how they function has nothing to do with what type of ship they are. Escorts are Escorts. Playable Raptors are not Escorts.

So what exactly is the difference then, aside the name and some minor differences in the ships characteristics ?

Also Cryptic can never claim with a straight face that they are even attempting to follow some kind of canon.

orangeitis

zipagat wrote: »

So what exactly is the difference then, aside the name and some minor differences in the ships characteristics ?

Raptor-type ships are called "Raptors". Escort-type ships are called "Escorts".

misterde3

kriskringle3 wrote: »

The game is trying to stay true to the "Star Trek Canon", or in effect the "Holy Bible" of the Gene Roddenberry legacy. So making something that strays too far from this most likely will never occur.

You mean like turning recon/scoutships into tactical ships?:rolleyes:

doffingcomrade

We don't need a "Raptor-Carrier". We do, however, sort of need a Raptor of SOME kind, given that NONE EXIST FOR PURCHASE. In fact, there are absolutely no End-Game KDF Escorts whatsoever to be seen in the C-Store.

orangeitis wrote: »

Raptor-type ships are called "Raptors". Escort-type ships are called "Escorts".

Gamewise, the only thing that apparently distinguishes them is that "Raptors" are "Escorts With Innate Cloak". They otherwise exhibit the same handling characteristics and boff layouts. Aside from that Escorts actually exist, Raptors apparently don't, because a grand total of zero exist for purchase.

zipagat

doffingcomrade wrote: »

We don't need a "Raptor-Carrier". We do, however, sort of need a Raptor of SOME kind, given that NONE EXIST FOR PURCHASE. In fact, there are absolutely no End-Game KDF Escorts whatsoever to be seen in the C-Store.

Gamewise, the only thing that apparently distinguishes them is that "Raptors" are "Escorts With Innate Cloak". They otherwise exhibit the same handling characteristics and boff layouts. Aside from that Escorts actually exist, Raptors apparently don't, because a grand total of zero exist for purchase.

Bingo. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

orangeitis

doffingcomrade wrote: »

Gamewise, the only thing that apparently distinguishes them is that "Raptors" are "Escorts With Innate Cloak". They otherwise exhibit the same handling characteristics and boff layouts.

What makes Escorts the 'default' tactical ship type?

By your logic, Escorts and Destroyers are merely Raptors without a cloak. No, those kinda of 'fuzzy' definitions are useless to me. I'm using definitions that are presented in the actual game.

doffingcomrade wrote: »

Aside from that Escorts actually exist, Raptors apparently don't, because a grand total of zero exist for purchase.

The SuQob and the Puyjaq exist for purchase. And before you say it, no, you didn't specify "end-game ships". And yes, you need to, because it's not automatically assumed.

Edit: To clarify, I am in the camp of Raptors getting more C-store releases. Not sure why you brought up that point to me.

zipagat wrote: »

Bingo. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

But that's a bad analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be giving two different cars with different makes the same features. You can call one the other's make, but that doesn't make it true. And Raptors were never implied to be Escorts that just have a cloak. They are ship types that share the vast majority of features though, and they both can qualify as tactical ships. But as far as I know, "Escort" was officially never a word used to describe any playable Raptor.

Until it is demonstrated otherwise, Raptors are not a sub-type of playable starship.

doffingcomrade

orangeitis wrote: »

The SuQob and the Puyjaq exist for purchase. And before you say it, no, you didn't specify "end-game ships". And yes, you need to, because it's not automatically assumed.

I was talking about SHIPS. What you have named is not a ship, but a console box that happens to come in the shape of a ship, yet is not a ship, end-game or otherwise. Just as a Fisher-Price Power Wheel isn't a car, that isn't a ship. The Bionuke and the Gravitron Pulse Thingy may come in a ship-shaped box, but the box itself isn't a ship.

orangeitis wrote: »

Until it is demonstrated otherwise, Raptors are not a sub-type of playable starship.

Who said they were? They're the fancy Klingon-flavored name for "Escort".

orangeitis

doffingcomrade wrote: »

I was talking about SHIPS. What you have named is not a ship, but a console box that happens to come in the shape of a ship, yet is not a ship, end-game or otherwise. Just as a Fisher-Price Power Wheel isn't a car, that isn't a ship. The Bionuke and the Gravitron Pulse Thingy may come in a ship-shaped box, but the box itself isn't a ship.

I'm talking about what the game defines as ships. I'm not interested in what things are called IRL.

doffingcomrade wrote: »

Who said they were? They're the fancy Klingon-flavored name for "Escort".

You did. Right after you said "Who said they were?".

Raptors aren't "Klingon Escorts", they're Raptors. They have nothing to do with Escorts. "Escort" is its own ship type in its own right, and "Raptor" is its own ship type in its own right.

doffingcomrade

orangeitis wrote: »

Raptors aren't "Klingon Escorts", they're Raptors. They have nothing to do with Escorts.

Aside from the fact that they share every single defining characteristic? I invoke the Duck Equivalence Principle here. It's boffed like an Escort, it flies like an Escort, it has guns like an Escort, it has consoles like an Escort, it's an Escort. A Raptor is just an Escort with a cloak, just like a Battlecruiser is a Cruiser with Cannons.

orangeitis wrote: »

"Escort" is its own ship type in its own right, and "Raptor" is its own ship type in its own right.

Weren't you just denying that they were a subtype of playable ship?

orangeitis

doffingcomrade wrote: »

Aside from the fact that they share every single defining characteristic? I invoke the Duck Equivalence Principle here. It's boffed like an Escort, it flies like an Escort, it has guns like an Escort, it has consoles like an Escort, it's an Escort. A Raptor is just an Escort with a cloak, just like a Battlecruiser is a Cruiser with Cannons.

The Duck Equivalence Principle is flawed because it invokes the argument of ignorance. Person A merely attributes anything that has common features of a duck to it being a duck without further investigation. Also, you're also invoking False Equivalence. Any examples of something having duck-like features are always ducks, when in this case, in no way are Raptors labeled Escorts outside of NPCs. They have their own common label. The initial or implied lack of uniqueness does not imply that two objects are identical.

Why is it "Raptors are Escorts"? Why isn't it "Escorts are Raptors"? Why isn't it "Raptors are Destroyers", "Escorts are Destroyers", etc? Because they aren't defined by their abilities. Their characteristics aren't unique, nor do they 'define' that ship type. It is directly because of this that ship types are defined by what they're called in-game.

No, playable are not "Escorts with a cloak" because they are not Escorts at all. So far, only Tactical Escorts are "Escorts with cloak".

It seems that you're trying to shoehorn the term "Escort" into synonymy with "tactical ship" when you have zero justification why "Escort" should be the type of tactical ship to be a synonymous blanket term.

And random note, it's the very fact that most types of tactical ship do not have unique characteristics that I would prefer them not to continue sharing characteristics.

doffingcomrade wrote: »

Weren't you just denying that they were a subtype of playable ship?

I'm rejecting the claim, not denying. Totally different things.


Edit: Given the original claim here, it seems that the assertion that "Raptors are Escorts" is the very reason why some want Raptors to share even more characteristics with Escorts. Why not give them uniqueness instead of forcing them to be functionally the same?

doffingcomrade

orangeitis wrote: »

I'm rejecting the claim, not denying. Totally different things.

You say this, but then you assert this very thing, that Raptors are allegedly their own unique type. This is despite the fact that they lack any distinguishing features that separate them from Escorts, since it is already established that the addition of a cloak does not qualify as distinguishing. When they ADD such a feature, then maybe such a notion will exist, but until then, I'm sticking to the Duck Equivalence Principle: They are in all ways completely indistinguishable. A duck by any other name is still just as on fire.

orangeitis

doffingcomrade wrote: »

You say this, but then you assert this very thing, that Raptors are allegedly their own unique type. This is despite the fact that they lack any distinguishing features that separate them from Escorts, since it is already established that the addition of a cloak does not qualify as distinguishing.

That's right I have asserted that claim. However, I've already backed up my claim in my last post with my explanation that is grounded in evidence from the game, as well as directly making a response to your continued insistence that ship types are determined by their features. It boggles the mind why you insist on ignoring it.

doffingcomrade wrote: »

When they ADD such a feature, then maybe such a notion will exist, but until then, I'm sticking to the Duck Equivalence Principle: They are in all ways completely indistinguishable. A duck by any other name is still just as on fire.

You can if you want, but every time you respond to me with such a fallacy, I'm gonna give you reasons as to why that's nonsense.

jaguarskx

stofsk wrote: »

I have a counter proposal

How about a c-store Bird-of-Prey, let's call it a Hegh'ta Retrofit, with a Fleet version that comes with the FSM discount, that instead of having a 'hangar' has wingmates of fellow Birds-of-prey.

I too would like a Hegh'ta Retrofit. The B'rel Retrofit is nice with the Enhanced Battle Cloak, but it's hull strength is below that of the Hegh'ta. Maybe I will buy the B'rel next time there is a ship sale. Using it for a torpedo build would be interesting.

orangeitis

^ The Hegh'ta would be refit, not retrofit. Regardless, what would its refit's console slots and BOFF positions be? They're all universal, so it's kinda hard switching them around...

killdozer9211

No more tac captains with pets, the scimitars are bad enough. HECs were a stupid idea that got abused and we're finally past that fad, let's not bring it back.


KDF needs a T5 c store raptor with 5 fore weapons, Wing cannons, and a Fused tail gun.

Show the feds how to make a real warship.

zipagat

killdozer9211 wrote: »

No more tac captains with pets, the scimitars are bad enough. HECs were a stupid idea that got abused and we're finally past that fad, let's not bring it back.


KDF needs a T5 c store raptor with 5 fore weapons, Wing cannons, and a Fused tail gun.

Show the feds how to make a real warship.

5 tact consoles to.

kapla1755

Dont know that we NEED a raptor copy of the JHEC but someone did suggest a flight wing console.... calls in a pair of BOPs to act as pets kinda like the Bortas pet.

I might lay out some currency for a ship with that type of console if I could use it with muy B'rel/Hegh'ta or K'vort [lol dream a little dream :P]

zipagat

We don't need a Raptor that is another pet spam ship either. If anything Raptors should have more of a sci leaning as they are supposed to be scout/recon ships.

killdozer9211

kapla1755 wrote: »

Dont know that we NEED a raptor copy of the JHEC but someone did suggest a flight wing console.... calls in a pair of BOPs to act as pets kinda like the Bortas pet.

I might lay out some currency for a ship with that type of console if I could use it with muy B'rel/Hegh'ta or K'vort [lol dream a little dream :P]

That actually would be pretty BA. A 3 min cool down console that brings in a pair of bops so you can have your own little wolfpack.

orangeitis

killdozer9211 wrote: »

That actually would be pretty BA. A 3 min cool down console that brings in a pair of bops so you can have your own little wolfpack.

Thirded. And icing on the cake would be if the BoP wings got a new skin(Hegh'ta refit maybe?) so we get a new BoP refit/retrofit too.

Shup up and take my money Cryptic!

mirrorchaos

you put raptor carriers in the game, then i ask you put t5 version of fed starter ships in game as well to match up with b'rel and t'varo. cant have it all one way :P.