by the way : turnrate is a bit steep for the carriers in OP ( and while it should be able to equip cannons I think the low turnrate should make that unfeasable ) . I think carriers should in essence always be beamboats because the pets already have cannons ( at least quite a lot of them do) unless you want to also change the pets
by the way : turnrate is a bit steep for the carriers in OP ( and while it should be able to equip cannons I think the low turnrate should make that unfeasable ) . I think carriers should in essence always be beamboats because the pets already have cannons ( at least quite a lot of them do) unless you want to also change the pets
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that 7.5 does seem a bit high, but those huge command battlecruisers have base turn of 8, so does the Kar'fi, the Sarr Theln is sitting at 7, and the Vo'quv is... lower lol
If it's left at 7.5 I won't complain, yes it's a bit more manuverable than most carriers in STO, but not by much, it'll still be a flying brick. lol
I won't complain, or argue about the turn rate as it stands, anything lower than 8 is a brick in my opinion... LOL :P
The Federation carrier designers went with a constant Low energy signature field to help mask their carriers similiar to what the Caitian stalker fighters have used in the past.
The Klingons decided to add the standard cloak to their carriers to help with their standard cloaked ship fleet movements.
The Romulans took ques from the D'Drex and Scimitar and added the standard Romulan battle cloak to their carrier.
How would you solve this problem without disregarding either of these mutually exclusive precedents?
#2 is resolved by the increased threat of the Iconians, thus Resolving #1 by the above suggestion.
"
Due to the looming threat of the Iconians the Factions have decided to add new updated carriers to their lineups...."
Is the reason all these T6 ships [Intel,Command,Pilot] were added in the 1st place [sell more ships]
:rolleyes:
My friend, I do believe you've done it...:eek: TO THE SHIPYARDS!
I've made the absolute final adjustments to the OP to reflect these changes. I'd like to thank you all for the positive/constructive comments in this thread, I just hope it doesn't get lost to the passage of time
The argument of "because we have not seen it means it can't exists" is getting really old.
There were no cloaking Federation ships till they added one.
There were no integrated cloaking federation ships till they added one (this one there were massive arguments from players as to why this could never happen yet it did)
There are no Klingon Carriers in Star Trek shows or movies and yet they were given one.
There are no dedicated Star Fleet carriers though in the shows/movies showed they had fighters.
Scimitar may not be "Romulan" designed but the Reman are part of the Romulan Empire and Republic. (unless your going to try to argue the ATrox, andorian escort, the Nassican Garumba are not part of their respective factions?)
Just because we have not seen a dedicated Romulan Carrier that doesn't mean we wont.. just like until Intel ships came out we never saw a integrated cloak on a Federation ship.
If cryptic does do a Carrier themed specialization / ship pack there are two factions missing main carriers. Star Fleet and the Romulans. Oddly the only two factions that showed the use of fighters in the shows and movies. As well as Federation has no frigate carrier ships as well.
So they have a great opportunity to shore up some imbalances when it comes to factions carriers as well as add some new dynamics to carrier combat.
As I have already stated I feel carriers are done wrong any how and that a new true or super carrier is needed that's dedicated to the carrier role.
But to say it CAN'T happen is a ridiculous argument. As time and time again things that many claimed would never happen has happened.... and so a dedicated Romulan Carrier w/battle cloak could happen there is more lore supporting it then not.. just like integrated cloaks on federation starships.
The argument of "because we have not seen it means it can't exists" is getting really old.
There were no cloaking Federation ships till they added one.
There were no integrated cloaking federation ships till they added one (this one there were massive arguments from players as to why this could never happen yet it did)
There are no Klingon Carriers in Star Trek shows or movies and yet they were given one.
There are no dedicated Star Fleet carriers though in the shows/movies showed they had fighters.
Scimitar may not be "Romulan" designed but the Reman are part of the Romulan Empire and Republic. (unless your going to try to argue the ATrox, andorian escort, the Nassican Garumba are not part of their respective factions?)
Just because we have not seen a dedicated Romulan Carrier that doesn't mean we wont.. just like until Intel ships came out we never saw a integrated cloak on a Federation ship.
If cryptic does do a Carrier themed specialization / ship pack there are two factions missing main carriers. Star Fleet and the Romulans. Oddly the only two factions that showed the use of fighters in the shows and movies. As well as Federation has no frigate carrier ships as well.
So they have a great opportunity to shore up some imbalances when it comes to factions carriers as well as add some new dynamics to carrier combat.
As I have already stated I feel carriers are done wrong any how and that a new true or super carrier is needed that's dedicated to the carrier role.
But to say it CAN'T happen is a ridiculous argument. As time and time again things that many claimed would never happen has happened.... and so a dedicated Romulan Carrier w/battle cloak could happen there is more lore supporting it then not.. just like integrated cloaks on federation starships.
Actually the only faction not having a carrier is Romulans ( Fed has the Atrox,albeit both that one and the KDF carriers are in need of an update )
Actually the only faction not having a carrier is Romulans ( Fed has the Atrox,albeit both that one and the KDF carriers are in need of an update )
I think the person you quoted was referring to the lack of an SCE-designed carrier for Starfleet; while it is good to have the somewhat-overlooked Caitians getting their own ship a lot of us would have preferred to see a more...traditional looking Starfleet wessel. :P
What would your thoughts be on a 3/4 loadout for the carriers?
Explanation:
That additional aft slot would have a Fused Point Defence-style turret that sent out microtorpedoes to foes within 2.5km, outside of that the turret would fire the carrier's factional energy weapon up to a distance of 4.5km at foes, fighters, and targetable torpedoes.
I'll see what the reaction is, then I'll add it in.
kelshando, I don't want to argue with you, I've stressed myself out too much lately arguing with someone else lol. Suffice it to say there is usually a good reason to break from established ship design precedents. Wars are always a catalyst for change, and using the Iconian War as an excuse to change how some ships are designed makes sense.
It is also a precedent in itself, the pilot ships are somewhat different from typical ship designs (for Romulans and Feds anyway)*, so using the same reason to make 'stealth carriers' is precedented and appropriate.
sharpie65, the idea of a point defnese style turret for carriers is rather clever. However, since we are already adding stealth functions and frigate pets to these beasties, would it really be wise to add more bells and whistles?
If, the above answer is yes...
Then I'd suggest trying to keep it simple, and just leave it a phaser/disruptor/plasma turret which auto-targets enemy fighters and targetable torpedoes/mines, perhaps toggle on-off, with a built in energy supply like the piercing plasma ground weapon?
We wouldn't want to make these carriers completely immune to tricobalt torpedoes, would we?
*The Fed pilot ships apparently inspired from the Defiant design, which is not a typical design for Starfleet. And the Romulan ships, while similar in shape with common Romulan designs are significantly smaller than most Romulan ships, most different from typical designs.
Yeah I would defo support some sort of carrier active power. Such as Instant deployment. I do also think that carriers need an extra hanger bay. They have lost their uniqueness now and just feel like Sci ships with bad turn rate and extra hull.
"Helm Prepare Maneuver Circle Target Alpha, Tactical Prepare BFAW3 and mash Spacebar"
So the Romulan version gets no tactical slots? All we can get is a Ensign Tac with the universal slot? Even the weakest of ships get a Lt Tac...
Complain much?
Seriously, though, it's obviously an oversight, don't have a heart attack.
I pointed it out a couple of posts ago, it'll get fixed.
Edit:
On tac slots, is it really wise to give the KDF a Lt. Com. Tac and leave the Fed (and possibly the Romulan?) with just a Lieutenant?
I was looking at the various full carriers and there seem to be only 2/8 of them only have a Lt. Tac (Exception being Tholian Recluse, though it has a Commander Universal which can be Tac). Admittedly one of those is the Fed's carrier (the other being the Obelisk), so... This is gonna get tricky...
The KDF variant has a most favorable BOFF layout, perhaps since various other C-Store cross-faction bundle ships share simmilar boff layouts, the Fed and Romulan versions be altered to match? Opinion?
What would your thoughts be on a 3/4 loadout for the carriers?
Explanation:
That additional aft slot would have a Fused Point Defence-style turret that sent out microtorpedoes to foes within 2.5km, outside of that the turret would fire the carrier's factional energy weapon up to a distance of 4.5km at foes, fighters, and targetable torpedoes.
I'll see what the reaction is, then I'll add it in.
As far as Bridge officer seating two suggestions either.....
Commander Science, Lt Commander Tactical/Command, Lt Commander Engineering/Specialist, Lt Commander Universal
and have that as the shared seating type across all 3 faction ships, either way gives the player options on how they want to run their ship.
I may have missed it but a frigate grade pet would be a nice option in addition to the standard special type fighters and another selling point to the ships.
For the Mastery Trait.....
Instant Deployment active power:
Instantly launches all fighters from hangars. (not launching from recall, spawning in both 'wings' from both hangars at once)
All hangar pets launched this way start at rank 2 (2 stars)
120 sec cooldown on active power.
I would call it Emergency Veteran Squad Deployment and have them spawn in at rank 5, I think the 120sec cd is fine.
I think the person you quoted was referring to the lack of an SCE-designed carrier for Starfleet; while it is good to have the somewhat-overlooked Caitians getting their own ship a lot of us would have preferred to see a more...traditional looking Starfleet wessel. :P
This.. that's why I stated "Star Fleet" as Atrox is federation but not Star Fleet.
Carriers pay for their pets with weapon slots because their pets are weapons. a 3/5 carrier with those stats (10 turn rate, humongous hull) is a standard cruiser (3/5 or 4/4 doesn't matter for a default BFAW boat) with three (!) hangars. That's a bit... extreme.
You should see my T6 cruiser stats. Out with the old, in with the new.
and have that as the shared seating type across all 3 faction ships, either way gives the player options on how they want to run their ship.
I may have missed it but a frigate grade pet would be a nice option in addition to the standard special type fighters and another selling point to the ships.
For the Mastery Trait.....
Instant Deployment active power:
Instantly launches all fighters from hangars. (not launching from recall, spawning in both 'wings' from both hangars at once)
All hangar pets launched this way start at rank 2 (2 stars)
120 sec cooldown on active power.
I would call it Emergency Veteran Squad Deployment and have them spawn in at rank 5, I think the 120sec cd is fine.
Qapla' bro, some good stuff here, some thoughts.
Firstly the BOFF layout, I've stated before pairing a Lt. Com. Tac with a Lt. Com. Uni would result in a carrier being able to run 2 BFAW III attacks, which even tac heavy cruisers can't do.
So, using your second suggestion as a base I'd like to suggest the following change:
*Intel would be a good fit here, especially since these carriers are a bit more clever with the stealth functions... Though, since we don't know what the next specialization (if any) is going to be, I left it 'specialist'
I changed the Lt. Com. Tac to non-specialist since people would likely not want to trade tac powers for command, switched the Lt. Com. eng/specialist to eng/command, to keep the command seat, and made the Lt. Uni a Lt. Uni/specialist, to keep the second specialist seat.
I have a reason for this (it's not an arbitrary change lol), currently only the specialist Starships and Lockbox/lobi ships have two specialist seats, and since these aren't specialist Starships, we have to take inspiration from the Lockbox/Lobi ships (which is a different 'kettle of fish' but it's all we've got *shrugs*), which don't run 2 Lt. Com. specialist seats, usually they run one Lt. Com. and one Lt. specialist station, if they run two specialist stations... many of them don't.
I like your take on the Mastery Trait, specifically the Active Power name "Emergency Veteran Squad Deployment" very cool. (perhaps drop 'emergency'? It does make the name rather long. lol)
Though, I'm somewhat scratching my head about the fighters starting with 5 stars... a 5-star 4 frigate pet 'fighter drop' would be a most crazy alpha strike, not even counting the carrier's weapons and abilities...
Perhaps a random 2-5 star rating for deployed pets from this method? This would allow for one or more 5 star pets to appear, but not all of them would be, most of the time.
I have no thoughts on the point defense idea (at the moment), I may think of something about it later, lol
Also, sharpie65, your base concept for the T6 carrier, the Sarr Theln is a Fleet Level ship (11 console slots is a good indicator), did you take this into consideration when you designed the specs for these carriers?
I would like Cryptic to put out more faction specific 2 bay carriers the problem being they have said that due to the battle cloak on romulan ships the romulans will not be getting a 2 bay carrier for the reasons mentioned in this thread. Personally I disagree with the logic they are using.
I you really want a true "carrier" style ship it should have more than 2 hangers and its only weapons should be point defense or maybe some torps & mines. You don't see the USS Nimitz going toe to toe with enemy warships, it uses its "pets" as its main weapons.
Give it a 3/3 weapon set-up limited to turrets only (or beam turrets if they added them), only useful for defense. Everything else comes from at least 4 hangers.
That way if you want to fly a real carrier you need to control those pets as both offensive and defensive weapons systems.
Plus before carriers become popular they need to look at sorting out pet commands and make them a bit more durable or less suicidal.
That and the lag....man with 4 hangers worth of pets it could kill the server!
I you really want a true "carrier" style ship it should have more than 2 hangers and its only weapons should be point defense or maybe some torps & mines. You don't see the USS Nimitz going toe to toe with enemy warships, it uses its "pets" as its main weapons.
Give it a 3/3 weapon set-up limited to turrets only (or beam turrets if they added them), only useful for defense. Everything else comes from at least 4 hangers.
That way if you want to fly a real carrier you need to control those pets as both offensive and defensive weapons systems.
Plus before carriers become popular they need to look at sorting out pet commands and make them a bit more durable or less suicidal.
That and the lag....man with 4 hangers worth of pets it could kill the server!
Hmm, flame bait perhaps?
Ah well, I can explain this with logic.
Firstly, while space combat does share many aspects in common with naval warfare, when you add in carriers it gets a little different.
Main difference being, carriers on Earth launch fighters hundreds of miles away, meaning the carrier is relatively safe from harm, and also protected by a group of other ships, some of which carry long range weaponry of simmilar range to fighters, so offensive weaponry on a naval carrier isn't needed.
In space combat this is somewhat different, since ships travel much much faster, the hundreds of miles can be shortened in mere moments, so a space carrier would have to have offensive weaponry once the target closes distances.
Naval carriers also use their fighters in an 'alpha strike' manor, as in "destroy the target with the first strike", which isn't exactly appropriate for a game...
Also, in STO specifically, player ships are generally meant to be able to complete missions without the need for other ships to defend the player like in naval carrier groups.
If Cryptic ever implemented a way for players to command small groups of NPC ships** a 'true carrier' would be more feasable in-game, but there has been little news on this topic for quite some time (nearly 2 years)...
I'll admit, I would like a 'true naval style carrier' for STO, but once an enemy ship hit BFAW and closed to weapons range I'd be wishing I'd packed some space guns.
**Excerpt from In-game Q&A Session with Executive Producer dStahl -- Transcript Inside!:
"(5:18:27 PM) dstahl: RE: BOFFS more relevant at end game - yes. this is a big feature reserved for the rank of Fleet Admiral - we want to see Away Teams in space - where BOFFS command ships that help you "
Also, sharpie65, your base concept for the T6 carrier, the Sarr Theln is a Fleet Level ship (11 console slots is a good indicator), did you take this into consideration when you designed the specs for these carriers?
I did not, heck I didn't even realise it was fleet level (lol)! I'll be honest here and say the Atrox and the Vo'quv were my only inspiration when drawing up the stats.
I have to say, I like the idea that kapla had about changing my OP-Point Defence (:P) to a Rapid-Fire Torpedo Defence Battery - I'm thinking about upping the target distance to standard range and changing the target criteria to the targeted enemy plus two other targets.
7km seems ideal for a rapid-firing kinetic battery..although would they be microtorpedoes, or full-sized ones?
I really like the thought of the Mastery Trait - Veteran Fighter Deployment, although I do have a question about it. Is the Veteran Fighter limited per hangar, or per wing/deployment?
In space combat this is somewhat different, since ships travel much much faster, the hundreds of miles can be shortened in mere moments, so a space carrier would have to have offensive weaponry once the target closes distances.
Naval carriers also use their fighters in an 'alpha strike' manor, as in "destroy the target with the first strike", which isn't exactly appropriate for a game...
Also, in STO specifically, player ships are generally meant to be able to complete missions
What a load of crock...
Everything is relative.... if the capital ships are traveling faster so are the fighters.. everything is relative.
Having a carrier styled after a concept that the fighters/attack wings and its frigates are its primary offence fire power can work just as well as a standard ship.
As a game they can make a single fighter have more fire power then 1000 scimitars... so no there is no reason they couldn't make a true carrier class ship.
With specializations, more hangers, skills and such it would be no issue of creating a carrier class ship that works fine for any content.
Before you bring up that real life carriers are part of a fleet, a Carrier can launch frigates.. those are your escorts. A carrier in game with 6 BOP's or Bug ships flying escort would be in essence a carriers escort.
Other then the apparent fact you don't like the idea there is no reason at all it could not be implemented.
Everything is relative.... if the capital ships are traveling faster so are the fighters.. everything is relative.
Having a carrier styled after a concept that the fighters/attack wings and its frigates are its primary offence fire power can work just as well as a standard ship.
As a game they can make a single fighter have more fire power then 1000 scimitars... so no there is no reason they couldn't make a true carrier class ship.
With specializations, more hangers, skills and such it would be no issue of creating a carrier class ship that works fine for any content.
Before you bring up that real life carriers are part of a fleet, a Carrier can launch frigates.. those are your escorts. A carrier in game with 6 BOP's or Bug ships flying escort would be in essence a carriers escort.
Other then the apparent fact you don't like the idea there is no reason at all it could not be implemented.
... *facepalm*
I don't want to get all 'flamey' over this, I just stated a logical argument on why Cryptic would decide not to go 'true carrier'.
This may or may not be my personal opinion and I'm not about to argue for or against 'true carriers' in STO, and this isn't the thread to argue such.
If you wish to discuss a concept for a 'true carrier', please create a thread so we can discuss it.
Firstly the BOFF layout, I've stated before pairing a Lt. Com. Tac with a Lt. Com. Uni would result in a carrier being able to run 2 BFAW attacks, which even tac heavy cruisers can't do.
So, using your second suggestion as a base I'd like to suggest the following change:
*Intel would be a good fit here, especially since these carriers are a bit more clever with the stealth functions... Though, since we don't know what the next specialization (if any) is going to be, I left it 'specialist'
I changed the Lt. Com. Tac to non-specialist since people would likely not want to trade tac powers for command, switched the Lt. Com. eng/specialist to eng/command, to keep the command seat, and made the Lt. Uni a Lt. Uni/specialist, to keep the second specialist seat.
I have a reason for this (it's not an arbitrary change lol), currently only the specialist Starships and Lockbox/lobi ships have two specialist seats, and since these aren't specialist Starships, we have to take inspiration from the Lockbox/Lobi ships (which is a different 'kettle of fish' but it's all we've got *shrugs*), which don't run 2 Lt. Com. specialist seats, usually they run one Lt. Com. and one Lt. specialist station, if they run two specialist stations... many of them don't.
I like your take on the Mastery Trait, specifically the Active Power name "Emergency Veteran Squad Deployment" very cool. (perhaps drop 'emergency'? It does make the name rather long. lol)
Though, I'm somewhat scratching my head about the fighters starting with 5 stars... a 5-star 4 frigate pet 'fighter drop' would be a most crazy alpha strike, not even counting the carrier's weapons and abilities...
Perhaps a random 2-5 star rating for deployed pets from this method? This would allow for one or more 5 star pets to appear, but not all of them would be, most of the time.
I have no thoughts on the point defense idea (at the moment), I may think of something about it later, lol
Also, sharpie65, your base concept for the T6 carrier, the Sarr Theln is a Fleet Level ship (11 console slots is a good indicator), did you take this into consideration when you designed the specs for these carriers?
Technically most cruisers can run 2 - BFAW attacks if they have a Lt tac but ppl rely on having TT-1 to much honestly. [personal setup varies from BFAW-1, APB-1, TS-3, to varients of BO-1/BFAW-1, TS-2 as personal preference with Distribute shields bound to a key] but that as an aside the Boff Layout you proposed is perfectly fine Intel abilities, especially Ionic turbulence to assist holding/debuffing targets for your pets is very useful.
It was very early in the morning when I typed out the name for the trait, a shorter version would be better. Hmmm how about 3 stars deployment as a compromise enough of a benefit to feel useful but just feel ppl would want something more as a mastery trait for grinding out 5 levels to unlock it, maybe add "veteran mastery traited" ships launch with EPTS-2 active for 15secs to help negate incoming enemy fire as they race to target?
When Sharpie65 suggested a fused point defense unit I personally flashed back to all the footage of Seawiz Gatling guns popping up to destroy inbound missiles/targets went with Kinetic dmg as they could boost the dmg and rate of fire without worrying of ppl stacking 3 tac consoles to benefit it [No one runs a torp carrier but me it seems even for fun :P]
As a bundle pack they could justify making it fleet level, without issue think thats where he derived the 11 consoles from.
***note any thoughts on a drone fighter maybe combine the Obelisk swarmers abilities with the Iconian MIr fighters as a last chance to damage protocol for the drone?
I would like Cryptic to put out more faction specific 2 bay carriers the problem being they have said that due to the battle cloak on romulan ships the romulans will not be getting a 2 bay carrier for the reasons mentioned in this thread. Personally I disagree with the logic they are using.
I you really want a true "carrier" style ship it should have more than 2 hangers and its only weapons should be point defense or maybe some torps & mines. You don't see the USS Nimitz going toe to toe with enemy warships, it uses its "pets" as its main weapons.
Give it a 3/3 weapon set-up limited to turrets only (or beam turrets if they added them), only useful for defense. Everything else comes from at least 4 hangers.
That way if you want to fly a real carrier you need to control those pets as both offensive and defensive weapons systems.
Plus before carriers become popular they need to look at sorting out pet commands and make them a bit more durable or less suicidal.
That and the lag....man with 4 hangers worth of pets it could kill the server!
People always make the mistake of comparing starships with Naval vessels, the firepower from an aging Constitution class starship is more that all the naval vessels combined, and it is not limited to the spacial axis it could attack from since it is mot mirred down worring about floating or the water resistance from turning. [You can be assured that if the USS Nimitz, had the Inertial dampeners to turn on its own axis instantly to line up a "Rapid heavy Rail-gun" weapon that it would be testing it right now, disabled flight deck means NO long range firepower, and frankly why all carriers are surrounded by their escort group cause they are a big fat slowwww target and why tiny ramming ships have done such damage to them so thematically Iconian ramming ships is very effecive]
Turrets are frankly a useless weapon used mainly to get an extra shot/proc vs not firing at all , why omni beams have become so popular since release more firepower without the spitball worth of dmg if your target is over 5km away from a turret.
4 hanger spam would just be more drain on the graphics heavy current environment we play in atm and is not needed, My Breen Sarr Theln cleans house just fine using the Plesh Brek frigates from the shipyard
I did not, heck I didn't even realise it was fleet level (lol)! I'll be honest here and say the Atrox and the Vo'quv were my only inspiration when drawing up the stats.
I have to say, I like the idea that kapla had about changing my OP-Point Defence (:P) to a Rapid-Fire Torpedo Defence Battery - I'm thinking about upping the target distance to standard range and changing the target criteria to the targeted enemy plus two other targets.
7km seems ideal for a rapid-firing kinetic battery..although would they be microtorpedoes, or full-sized ones?
This could step on some toes, the Armitage has a Torpedo Point defense system on it, though it functions differently than the one we've discussed...
However, if it were a form of Kinetic Cannon (touchy topic I know) it could seperate it somewhat from the Armitage version.
Although, a Kinetic Cannon would be somewhat less effective and have ammo concerns (logistically speaking, though not necessarily in game lol), then comes the relatavistic concernes that the projectiles could only be accelerated so fast without some kind of warp field...
Disregard the above, it's not feasable for a space weapon.
Micro torpedoes could work.
But then there's the problem of kinetic absorbtion of fighter shields, micro torpedoes might prove ineffective against their intended targets, maybe?
They could prove ineffective, although I would like you to consider a railgun concept when thinking about this..not torpedoes as we have them in-game, just electromagnetically-supercharged microslugs of duranium/tritanium :P
I could also take into the role that TBRs play in anti-fighter operations and use that as the selling point for the system *:eek:, goes to hide in a hole over the potential rage/flaming directed his way*
Technically most cruisers can run 2 - BFAW attacks if they have a Lt tac but ppl rely on having TT-1 to much honestly. [personal setup varies from BFAW-1, APB-1, TS-3, to varients of BO-1/BFAW-1, TS-2 as personal preference with Distribute shields bound to a key] but that as an aside the Boff Layout you proposed is perfectly fine Intel abilities, especially Ionic turbulence to assist holding/debuffing targets for your pets is very useful.
It was very early in the morning when I typed out the name for the trait, a shorter version would be better. Hmmm how about 3 stars deployment as a compromise enough of a benefit to feel useful but just feel ppl would want something more as a mastery trait for grinding out 5 levels to unlock it, maybe add "veteran mastery traited" ships launch with EPTS-2 active for 15secs to help negate incoming enemy fire as they race to target?
When Sharpie65 suggested a fused point defense unit I personally flashed back to all the footage of Seawiz Gatling guns popping up to destroy inbound missiles/targets went with Kinetic dmg as they could boost the dmg and rate of fire without worrying of ppl stacking 3 tac consoles to benefit it [No one runs a torp carrier but me it seems even for fun :P]
As a bundle pack they could justify making it fleet level, without issue think thats where he derived the 11 consoles from.
***note any thoughts on a drone fighter maybe combine the Obelisk swarmers abilities with the Iconian MIr fighters as a last chance to damage protocol for the drone?
...
Apologies, I should have stated '2 BFAW III attacks' my mistake, I'll alter my post in a minute...
Also, 3 stars would be appropriate, I originally posted the fighter rank bonus as a little benefit to the active power aside from the convienience of launching all fighters at once (which can be done now by pre-launching them and recalling them before the battle starts).
The "Veteran Mastery" thing of a short shield buff for launched fighters would be rather clever, and not really too much since 15 seconds would basically just protect them from blowing up in your face as you launch them. LOL
Yes, as a bundle they *could* justify selling them as Fleet level out of the box... possibly, I'm somewhat indifferent to this and could go either way. :P
I did not, heck I didn't even realise it was fleet level (lol)! I'll be honest here and say the Atrox and the Vo'quv were my only inspiration when drawing up the stats.
I have to say, I like the idea that kapla had about changing my OP-Point Defence (:P) to a Rapid-Fire Torpedo Defence Battery - I'm thinking about upping the target distance to standard range and changing the target criteria to the targeted enemy plus two other targets.
7km seems ideal for a rapid-firing kinetic battery..although would they be microtorpedoes, or full-sized ones?
I really like the thought of the Mastery Trait - Veteran Fighter Deployment, although I do have a question about it. Is the Veteran Fighter limited per hangar, or per wing/deployment?
The idea was with the trait once every 2mins you could instantly launch a full strike wing [12 fighters or 4 frigates or 6 fighters/2 frigate mix] if you desired. I believe that was the general thought for the trait.
The idea was with the trait once every 2mins you could instantly launch a full strike wing [12 fighters or 4 frigates or 6 fighters/2 frigate mix] if you desired. I believe that was the general thought for the trait.
Indeed, I thought that the instant deployment deal would instantly launch all fighters/shuttles/frigates from both hangars at once, effectively a 'fighter drop' without having to launch first then recall. Also, a 'panic button' should you lose all hangar pets in a short time...
They could prove ineffective, although I would like you to consider a railgun concept when thinking about this..not torpedoes as we have them in-game, just electromagnetically-supercharged microslugs of duranium/tritanium :P
I could also take into the role that TBRs play in anti-fighter operations and use that as the selling point for the system *:eek:, goes to hide in a hole over the potential rage/flaming directed his way*
Anti-fighter rail guns? I'm thinking of the U.S.A.F. Daedalus right now. AWESOME!!!
If the PD cannon had some kind of enhanced shield penetration (vs. small craft only perhaps?) of say 30% then it could prove quite an effective anti-fighter defensive weapon.
It would be always active, however it would only be of benefit against fighters/targetable torpedoes and mines with a generous amount of shield penetration versus those craft.
A downside of this would be that it could simultaneously track and fire at four targets at any one time (including any ships within the 7km range).
It would be always active, however it would only be of benefit against fighters/targetable torpedoes and mines with a generous amount of shield penetration versus those craft.
A downside of this would be that it could simultaneously track and fire at four targets at any one time (including any ships within the 7km range).
Hmm, I'm thinking it might just make tricobalts and high yield plasma globs completely ineffective vs a so-equipped carrier...
As for the problem of it tracking large ships too, it could have the shield penetration bonus only vs. fighters AND have a low base damage with bonus vs fighters like the point defense console.
And the number of targets could be reduced if you feel it is too high, 2 targets perhaps?
I keep coming back to the 'always on' deal... perhaps throwing on an internal 'fuel' supply like the Romulan Plasma Flamethrower, so when the turret is 'out of fuel' the carrier would be vulnerable to tricobalts and mines for a little while?
Comments
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that 7.5 does seem a bit high, but those huge command battlecruisers have base turn of 8, so does the Kar'fi, the Sarr Theln is sitting at 7, and the Vo'quv is... lower lol
If it's left at 7.5 I won't complain, yes it's a bit more manuverable than most carriers in STO, but not by much, it'll still be a flying brick. lol
I won't complain, or argue about the turn rate as it stands, anything lower than 8 is a brick in my opinion... LOL :P
My friend, I do believe you've done it...:eek: TO THE SHIPYARDS!
I've made the absolute final adjustments to the OP to reflect these changes. I'd like to thank you all for the positive/constructive comments in this thread, I just hope it doesn't get lost to the passage of time
There were no cloaking Federation ships till they added one.
There were no integrated cloaking federation ships till they added one (this one there were massive arguments from players as to why this could never happen yet it did)
There are no Klingon Carriers in Star Trek shows or movies and yet they were given one.
There are no dedicated Star Fleet carriers though in the shows/movies showed they had fighters.
Scimitar may not be "Romulan" designed but the Reman are part of the Romulan Empire and Republic. (unless your going to try to argue the ATrox, andorian escort, the Nassican Garumba are not part of their respective factions?)
Just because we have not seen a dedicated Romulan Carrier that doesn't mean we wont.. just like until Intel ships came out we never saw a integrated cloak on a Federation ship.
If cryptic does do a Carrier themed specialization / ship pack there are two factions missing main carriers. Star Fleet and the Romulans. Oddly the only two factions that showed the use of fighters in the shows and movies. As well as Federation has no frigate carrier ships as well.
So they have a great opportunity to shore up some imbalances when it comes to factions carriers as well as add some new dynamics to carrier combat.
As I have already stated I feel carriers are done wrong any how and that a new true or super carrier is needed that's dedicated to the carrier role.
But to say it CAN'T happen is a ridiculous argument. As time and time again things that many claimed would never happen has happened.... and so a dedicated Romulan Carrier w/battle cloak could happen there is more lore supporting it then not.. just like integrated cloaks on federation starships.
Actually the only faction not having a carrier is Romulans ( Fed has the Atrox,albeit both that one and the KDF carriers are in need of an update )
I think the person you quoted was referring to the lack of an SCE-designed carrier for Starfleet; while it is good to have the somewhat-overlooked Caitians getting their own ship a lot of us would have preferred to see a more...traditional looking Starfleet wessel. :P
What would your thoughts be on a 3/4 loadout for the carriers?
Explanation:
That additional aft slot would have a Fused Point Defence-style turret that sent out microtorpedoes to foes within 2.5km, outside of that the turret would fire the carrier's factional energy weapon up to a distance of 4.5km at foes, fighters, and targetable torpedoes.
I'll see what the reaction is, then I'll add it in.
It is also a precedent in itself, the pilot ships are somewhat different from typical ship designs (for Romulans and Feds anyway)*, so using the same reason to make 'stealth carriers' is precedented and appropriate.
sharpie65, the idea of a point defnese style turret for carriers is rather clever. However, since we are already adding stealth functions and frigate pets to these beasties, would it really be wise to add more bells and whistles?
If, the above answer is yes...
Then I'd suggest trying to keep it simple, and just leave it a phaser/disruptor/plasma turret which auto-targets enemy fighters and targetable torpedoes/mines, perhaps toggle on-off, with a built in energy supply like the piercing plasma ground weapon?
We wouldn't want to make these carriers completely immune to tricobalt torpedoes, would we?
*The Fed pilot ships apparently inspired from the Defiant design, which is not a typical design for Starfleet. And the Romulan ships, while similar in shape with common Romulan designs are significantly smaller than most Romulan ships, most different from typical designs.
== Start Trait ==
(insert name here)
+10% rank up speed for all hangar pets
10% reduced cooldown on hangar bays
Instant Deployment active power:
Instantly launches all fighters from hangars. (not launching from recall, spawning in both 'wings' from both hangars at once)
All hangar pets launched this way start at rank 2 (2 stars)
120 sec cooldown on active power.
== end trait ==
Too much?
Edit: was just looking over the specs of the ships. One question, where are the Romulan Tac stations? It doesn't have any lol
Complain much?
Seriously, though, it's obviously an oversight, don't have a heart attack.
I pointed it out a couple of posts ago, it'll get fixed.
Edit:
On tac slots, is it really wise to give the KDF a Lt. Com. Tac and leave the Fed (and possibly the Romulan?) with just a Lieutenant?
I was looking at the various full carriers and there seem to be only 2/8 of them only have a Lt. Tac (Exception being Tholian Recluse, though it has a Commander Universal which can be Tac). Admittedly one of those is the Fed's carrier (the other being the Obelisk), so... This is gonna get tricky...
The KDF variant has a most favorable BOFF layout, perhaps since various other C-Store cross-faction bundle ships share simmilar boff layouts, the Fed and Romulan versions be altered to match? Opinion?
Personally the biggest annoyance with Iconian battles is the Viral / Emp probes so I like the point defense concept how about something like the Automated Defense Battery except doing Kinetic damge like the Kinetic cutting beam but firing in pulses with say a maximum range of 7-10km.I]It would need a decent damage and/or a high refire rate similar to the quad cannons for example[/I. Been a fan of trying to get a sci ship build with a 3/4 layout for a long time personally.
As far as Bridge officer seating two suggestions either.....
Commander Science, Lt Commander Tactical/Command, Lt Commander Engineering/Specialist, Lt Commander Universal
or
Commander Science, Lt Commander Tactical/Command, Lt Commander Engineering/Specialist, Lt Universal, Ensign Universal
and have that as the shared seating type across all 3 faction ships, either way gives the player options on how they want to run their ship.
I may have missed it but a frigate grade pet would be a nice option in addition to the standard special type fighters and another selling point to the ships.
For the Mastery Trait.....
Instant Deployment active power:
Instantly launches all fighters from hangars. (not launching from recall, spawning in both 'wings' from both hangars at once)
All hangar pets launched this way start at rank 2 (2 stars)
120 sec cooldown on active power.
I would call it Emergency Veteran Squad Deployment and have them spawn in at rank 5, I think the 120sec cd is fine.
This.. that's why I stated "Star Fleet" as Atrox is federation but not Star Fleet.
You should see my T6 cruiser stats. Out with the old, in with the new.
Qapla' bro, some good stuff here, some thoughts.
Firstly the BOFF layout, I've stated before pairing a Lt. Com. Tac with a Lt. Com. Uni would result in a carrier being able to run 2 BFAW III attacks, which even tac heavy cruisers can't do.
So, using your second suggestion as a base I'd like to suggest the following change:
Commander Science, Lt Commander Tactical, Lt Commander Engineering/Command, Lt Universal/Specialist*, Ensign Universal
*Intel would be a good fit here, especially since these carriers are a bit more clever with the stealth functions... Though, since we don't know what the next specialization (if any) is going to be, I left it 'specialist'
I changed the Lt. Com. Tac to non-specialist since people would likely not want to trade tac powers for command, switched the Lt. Com. eng/specialist to eng/command, to keep the command seat, and made the Lt. Uni a Lt. Uni/specialist, to keep the second specialist seat.
I have a reason for this (it's not an arbitrary change lol), currently only the specialist Starships and Lockbox/lobi ships have two specialist seats, and since these aren't specialist Starships, we have to take inspiration from the Lockbox/Lobi ships (which is a different 'kettle of fish' but it's all we've got *shrugs*), which don't run 2 Lt. Com. specialist seats, usually they run one Lt. Com. and one Lt. specialist station, if they run two specialist stations... many of them don't.
I like your take on the Mastery Trait, specifically the Active Power name "Emergency Veteran Squad Deployment" very cool.
Though, I'm somewhat scratching my head about the fighters starting with 5 stars... a 5-star 4 frigate pet 'fighter drop' would be a most crazy alpha strike, not even counting the carrier's weapons and abilities...
Perhaps a random 2-5 star rating for deployed pets from this method? This would allow for one or more 5 star pets to appear, but not all of them would be, most of the time.
I have no thoughts on the point defense idea (at the moment), I may think of something about it later, lol
Also, sharpie65, your base concept for the T6 carrier, the Sarr Theln is a Fleet Level ship (11 console slots is a good indicator), did you take this into consideration when you designed the specs for these carriers?
Give it a 3/3 weapon set-up limited to turrets only (or beam turrets if they added them), only useful for defense. Everything else comes from at least 4 hangers.
That way if you want to fly a real carrier you need to control those pets as both offensive and defensive weapons systems.
Plus before carriers become popular they need to look at sorting out pet commands and make them a bit more durable or less suicidal.
That and the lag....man with 4 hangers worth of pets it could kill the server!
Hmm, flame bait perhaps?
Ah well, I can explain this with logic.
Firstly, while space combat does share many aspects in common with naval warfare, when you add in carriers it gets a little different.
Main difference being, carriers on Earth launch fighters hundreds of miles away, meaning the carrier is relatively safe from harm, and also protected by a group of other ships, some of which carry long range weaponry of simmilar range to fighters, so offensive weaponry on a naval carrier isn't needed.
In space combat this is somewhat different, since ships travel much much faster, the hundreds of miles can be shortened in mere moments, so a space carrier would have to have offensive weaponry once the target closes distances.
Naval carriers also use their fighters in an 'alpha strike' manor, as in "destroy the target with the first strike", which isn't exactly appropriate for a game...
Also, in STO specifically, player ships are generally meant to be able to complete missions without the need for other ships to defend the player like in naval carrier groups.
If Cryptic ever implemented a way for players to command small groups of NPC ships** a 'true carrier' would be more feasable in-game, but there has been little news on this topic for quite some time (nearly 2 years)...
I'll admit, I would like a 'true naval style carrier' for STO, but once an enemy ship hit BFAW and closed to weapons range I'd be wishing I'd packed some space guns.
**Excerpt from In-game Q&A Session with Executive Producer dStahl -- Transcript Inside!:
"(5:18:27 PM) dstahl: RE: BOFFS more relevant at end game - yes. this is a big feature reserved for the rank of Fleet Admiral - we want to see Away Teams in space - where BOFFS command ships that help you "
I did not, heck I didn't even realise it was fleet level (lol)! I'll be honest here and say the Atrox and the Vo'quv were my only inspiration when drawing up the stats.
I have to say, I like the idea that kapla had about changing my OP-Point Defence (:P) to a Rapid-Fire Torpedo Defence Battery - I'm thinking about upping the target distance to standard range and changing the target criteria to the targeted enemy plus two other targets.
7km seems ideal for a rapid-firing kinetic battery..although would they be microtorpedoes, or full-sized ones?
I really like the thought of the Mastery Trait - Veteran Fighter Deployment, although I do have a question about it. Is the Veteran Fighter limited per hangar, or per wing/deployment?
What a load of crock...
Everything is relative.... if the capital ships are traveling faster so are the fighters.. everything is relative.
Having a carrier styled after a concept that the fighters/attack wings and its frigates are its primary offence fire power can work just as well as a standard ship.
As a game they can make a single fighter have more fire power then 1000 scimitars... so no there is no reason they couldn't make a true carrier class ship.
With specializations, more hangers, skills and such it would be no issue of creating a carrier class ship that works fine for any content.
Before you bring up that real life carriers are part of a fleet, a Carrier can launch frigates.. those are your escorts. A carrier in game with 6 BOP's or Bug ships flying escort would be in essence a carriers escort.
Other then the apparent fact you don't like the idea there is no reason at all it could not be implemented.
... *facepalm*
I don't want to get all 'flamey' over this, I just stated a logical argument on why Cryptic would decide not to go 'true carrier'.
This may or may not be my personal opinion and I'm not about to argue for or against 'true carriers' in STO, and this isn't the thread to argue such.
If you wish to discuss a concept for a 'true carrier', please create a thread so we can discuss it.
Technically most cruisers can run 2 - BFAW attacks if they have a Lt tac but ppl rely on having TT-1 to much honestly. [personal setup varies from BFAW-1, APB-1, TS-3, to varients of BO-1/BFAW-1, TS-2 as personal preference with Distribute shields bound to a key] but that as an aside the Boff Layout you proposed is perfectly fine Intel abilities, especially Ionic turbulence to assist holding/debuffing targets for your pets is very useful.
It was very early in the morning when I typed out the name for the trait, a shorter version would be better.
When Sharpie65 suggested a fused point defense unit I personally flashed back to all the footage of Seawiz Gatling guns popping up to destroy inbound missiles/targets went with Kinetic dmg as they could boost the dmg and rate of fire without worrying of ppl stacking 3 tac consoles to benefit it [No one runs a torp carrier but me it seems even for fun :P]
As a bundle pack they could justify making it fleet level, without issue think thats where he derived the 11 consoles from.
***note any thoughts on a drone fighter maybe combine the Obelisk swarmers abilities with the Iconian MIr fighters as a last chance to damage protocol for the drone?
When/where did they state this?
People always make the mistake of comparing starships with Naval vessels, the firepower from an aging Constitution class starship is more that all the naval vessels combined, and it is not limited to the spacial axis it could attack from since it is mot mirred down worring about floating or the water resistance from turning. [You can be assured that if the USS Nimitz, had the Inertial dampeners to turn on its own axis instantly to line up a "Rapid heavy Rail-gun" weapon that it would be testing it right now, disabled flight deck means NO long range firepower, and frankly why all carriers are surrounded by their escort group cause they are a big fat slowwww target and why tiny ramming ships have done such damage to them so thematically Iconian ramming ships is very effecive]
Turrets are frankly a useless weapon used mainly to get an extra shot/proc vs not firing at all , why omni beams have become so popular since release more firepower without the spitball worth of dmg if your target is over 5km away from a turret.
4 hanger spam would just be more drain on the graphics heavy current environment we play in atm and is not needed, My Breen Sarr Theln cleans house just fine using the Plesh Brek frigates from the shipyard
This could step on some toes, the Armitage has a Torpedo Point defense system on it, though it functions differently than the one we've discussed...
However, if it were a form of Kinetic Cannon (touchy topic I know) it could seperate it somewhat from the Armitage version.
Although, a Kinetic Cannon would be somewhat less effective and have ammo concerns (logistically speaking, though not necessarily in game lol), then comes the relatavistic concernes that the projectiles could only be accelerated so fast without some kind of warp field...
Disregard the above, it's not feasable for a space weapon.
Micro torpedoes could work.
But then there's the problem of kinetic absorbtion of fighter shields, micro torpedoes might prove ineffective against their intended targets, maybe?
I could also take into the role that TBRs play in anti-fighter operations and use that as the selling point for the system *:eek:, goes to hide in a hole over the potential rage/flaming directed his way*
Apologies, I should have stated '2 BFAW III attacks' my mistake, I'll alter my post in a minute...
Also, 3 stars would be appropriate, I originally posted the fighter rank bonus as a little benefit to the active power aside from the convienience of launching all fighters at once (which can be done now by pre-launching them and recalling them before the battle starts).
The "Veteran Mastery" thing of a short shield buff for launched fighters would be rather clever, and not really too much since 15 seconds would basically just protect them from blowing up in your face as you launch them. LOL
Yes, as a bundle they *could* justify selling them as Fleet level out of the box... possibly, I'm somewhat indifferent to this and could go either way. :P
The idea was with the trait once every 2mins you could instantly launch a full strike wing [12 fighters or 4 frigates or 6 fighters/2 frigate mix] if you desired. I believe that was the general thought for the trait.
Indeed, I thought that the instant deployment deal would instantly launch all fighters/shuttles/frigates from both hangars at once, effectively a 'fighter drop' without having to launch first then recall. Also, a 'panic button' should you lose all hangar pets in a short time...
Anti-fighter rail guns? I'm thinking of the U.S.A.F. Daedalus right now. AWESOME!!!
If the PD cannon had some kind of enhanced shield penetration (vs. small craft only perhaps?) of say 30% then it could prove quite an effective anti-fighter defensive weapon.
Would this PD cannon be 'always on' like the Automated Defense Turret or an activated ability with a cooldown like Point Defense System?
It would be always active, however it would only be of benefit against fighters/targetable torpedoes and mines with a generous amount of shield penetration versus those craft.
A downside of this would be that it could simultaneously track and fire at four targets at any one time (including any ships within the 7km range).
Hmm, I'm thinking it might just make tricobalts and high yield plasma globs completely ineffective vs a so-equipped carrier...
As for the problem of it tracking large ships too, it could have the shield penetration bonus only vs. fighters AND have a low base damage with bonus vs fighters like the point defense console.
And the number of targets could be reduced if you feel it is too high, 2 targets perhaps?
I keep coming back to the 'always on' deal... perhaps throwing on an internal 'fuel' supply like the Romulan Plasma Flamethrower, so when the turret is 'out of fuel' the carrier would be vulnerable to tricobalts and mines for a little while?