Long ago, back when fighter pets were still good... and T5-U and T6 ships were not yet announced, I made a designed concept for the Typhon-class carrier (and her many versions of fighters), but I never considered making a true carrier (that is one with limited weapons slots, and more hangar bays)... but now having seen this topic Ive gone and updated it and made it a T6 ship, with masteries suiting a carrier and stats suiting a ship of its size at tier 6...
And yes, Im aware getting a ship from another game would be all but impossible... but I imagine a pure bred carrier with 4 hangar bays would be pretty impossible too so... whatever, it was fun to make.
Sorry, but your fortress mode that takes weapons and hangers offline sounds about as useful as the Intrepid console (and does almost exactly the same thing)
Plus, why Pilot slots and not Command? this isn't an escort, it is a command vessel, right?
otherwise looks very very similar to the OP, but I still like the idea.
Ark Royal-class Fleet Carrier:
Actual Length: 566.49m
Actual Height: 110.23m
Actual Beam: 309.98m
Crew compliment: - total: 3200
Crew: 720
Air crew: 2480
The Ark Royal was launched in 2286 and commissioned 2287. The design was Starfleet?s first Fleet Carrier, to provide fighter cover for the fleets. The design proved to be very successful in deterring Klingon aggression and in the subsequent Metar and ISC campaigns. Production was increased with the impending ISC attacks.
Whilst not used as a flagship, the Ark Royal class were still the primary tactical element of the fleets. There are those who argue that the ?big gun? era of dreadnoughts is as obsolete as the battleships of World War 2. What must be remembered about the Ark Royal class is the flexibility of the design. The squadron make-up of the carrier can be varied for the role required. On a standard basis the design can be considered to be like a cross between a fleet carrier and an assault ship/assult carrier. There are elements of fighters onbord but tere are also freight shuttles, runabouts,scientific shuttlecraft, medical shuttles, aquatic shuttlecraft and assault shuttles. All of these variants give the Ark Royal class the ability to conduct search-and-rescue, planetary evacuation, large-scale away team exercises, large-scale security operations, disaster-relief and peace-keeping roles.
Fighter groups (examples as taken from U.S.S. Glorious):
2x 20 Hornet fighters - Top Dogs and Victors.
6x Wild Weasel- Magic Hats.
5x Oracles (AWAC)- The Psychics
2x 16 shuttle- The Crate-Pushers and The White Van Men.
- note in times of war 1 squadron of shuttles could be replaced with another squadron of 20 fighters.
Ark Royal designed by artist Nate Simpson for Starfleet Command 2: Empires at War.
I really like this idea, and i wish PWE/Criptic would make fighters launch in 6's instead of 3's, if they're going to be as weak as they are currently. I'm fine with Frigates launching one at a time, for a max of 2 per bay (maybe limit the loadout to 2 frigates and 2 fighters to better control numbers.
Also somebody mentioned the AI, I second this ideal.
Somebody else mentioned making Fighters immune to warp core breaches, I think this is good too, also maybe (like WoW pets) making any pets take reduced damage from AOE abilities, to bring AoE damage in line with their own paltry HP pools
Long ago, back when fighter pets were still good... and T5-U and T6 ships were not yet announced, I made a designed concept for the Typhon-class carrier (and her many versions of fighters), but I never considered making a true carrier (that is one with limited weapons slots, and more hangar bays)... but now having seen this topic Ive gone and updated it and made it a T6 ship, with masteries suiting a carrier and stats suiting a ship of its size at tier 6...
And yes, Im aware getting a ship from another game would be all but impossible... but I imagine a pure bred carrier with 4 hangar bays would be pretty impossible too so... whatever, it was fun to make.
I was a bit harsh earlier. And I do like the idea of twin-linked turrets
Sorry, but your fortress mode that takes weapons and hangers offline sounds about as useful as the Intrepid console (and does almost exactly the same thing)
Plus, why Pilot slots and not Command? this isn't an escort, it is a command vessel, right?
otherwise looks very very similar to the OP, but I still like the idea.
The Fortress Mode is a toggle, that also grants a 20 second boost to shield regeneration. Once toggled on, Fortress mode stays active until toggled off, which then puts it into its 180 second cooldown. The Typhon could, theoretically, sit an entire battle in Fortress Mode, but it would be unable to influence it with weapons or extra fighters, just boff abilities.
Looking at the list of both Command abilities and Pilot abilities, abilities like Attack Patter: Lambda, Deploy Countermeasures, Clean Getaway, Reinforcements Squadron, and Hold Together seem much more useful over all, when compared to most of the Command abilities.
I was a bit harsh earlier. And I do like the idea of twin-linked turrets
The twin turret seemed like the most logical progression for a ship meant to use its weapons for defense, and not offense, especially with the 'turret and single cannon' only limitation. (That limitation is also why the Typhon gets the most diverse fighter choice.)
Sorry, but your fortress mode that takes weapons and hangers offline sounds about as useful as the Intrepid console (and does almost exactly the same thing)
Plus, why Pilot slots and not Command? this isn't an escort, it is a command vessel, right?
otherwise looks very very similar to the OP, but I still like the idea.
The Fortress Mode is a toggle, that also grants a 20 second boost to shield regeneration. Once toggled on, Fortress mode stays active until toggled off, which then puts it into its 180 second cooldown. The Typhon could, theoretically, sit an entire battle in Fortress Mode, but it would be unable to influence it with weapons or extra fighters, just boff abilities.
Looking at the list of both Command abilities and Pilot abilities, abilities like Attack Patter: Lambda, Deploy Countermeasures, Clean Getaway, Reinforcements Squadron, and Hold Together seem much more useful over all, when compared to most of the Command abilities.
I was a bit harsh earlier. And I do like the idea of twin-linked turrets
The twin turret seemed like the most logical progression for a ship meant to use its weapons for defense, and not offense, especially with the 'turret and single cannon' only limitation. (That limitation is also why the Typhon gets the most diverse fighter choice.)
I feel like Fort Mode is still kinda meh, unless you were to include a 25% reduction on boff abilities c/d or maybe a redux that scales with sub-system power. Maybe the way it takes weapons offline is by cycling all your weapon power equally into your other subsystems? or perhaps buffs hanger pets HP, Shield and Damage by a % based on subsystem power? something to make it more viable. I dont hate the idea or anything, it just doesnt sound that useful to me by itself
I feel like Fort Mode is still kinda meh, unless you were to include a 25% reduction on boff abilities c/d or maybe a redux that scales with sub-system power. Maybe the way it takes weapons offline is by cycling all your weapon power equally into your other subsystems? or perhaps buffs hanger pets HP, Shield and Damage by a % based on subsystem power? something to make it more viable. I dont hate the idea or anything, it just doesnt sound that useful to me by itself
Its literally meant to be as close to an invulnerability console as possible. The upside is that it makes you practically immune to all damage, for as long as you want. The downside is it removes you ability to fire weapons of any kind, and removes your ability to launch fighters. Whn you decide to toggle it off (whether it was active for 5 seconds or 10 minutes) the console goes into a 3 minute cooldown and you cant toggle it on until that is over. (I did use the Intrepid's ablative generator as a reference, thats why it appears similar... and its possible the generator was buffed after I thought it up, but that was the reasoning behind the console... and the Typhon in Star Trek Invasion actually did have a fortress mode)
The set bonus (between the console and the turret) grants your ship the ability to target pets and torpedoes automatically and allows the turret to shoot them, but allows no user control over the weapon targeting.
I support all of this.
Right now hangers are on most of my ships but aside from my T6 escort carrier i find them useless.
i would love a much tougther carrier and i love the idea of using the ST Invasion typhoon carrier.
Of course weather it would remain known as a typhoon or not is another thing as we used to have a npc typhoon ship in game.
"It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
Useless for hangar pet is subjective. It is no different from a beam user not using the beams optimally and yet the basis of beams being useless is the non optimal performance.
Advance peregrine per hangar slot is around 2-3k+ DPS. If you trait scramble fighters even more. Even more if you and your team are built for all damage or pet damage.
If you are all going to ask for a full hangar pets make it least realizable and balance. Dont ask for OP ships. If you ask for pets, ask for more pets. But dont ask for more hangar slots, better hull and shield hp than any ship and create better tanking/aggro mechanics than any current God-Tier tanks currently in game.
Then of course there is an issue of story. How to create a story wherein a race rewinds its military doctrine to 20th century earth where fighters valued in an age where precision weapons swat them like flies.
Of course weather it would remain known as a typhoon or not is another thing as we used to have a npc typhoon ship in game.
Jesus... everytime I bring up the TYPHON someone comes in and refers to it as a TYPHOON... for crying out loud...
A typhOOn is this. (Please note the spelling typhOOn.)
TyphOn is this. (Again note the spelling... typhOn.)
Its as if reading comprehension isnt a skill that is taught in school... Here, listen to the dulcet tones of Sir Patrick Stewart and Michael Dorn pronounce it... also observe the size of the TYPHON. Shes compact... which is also why I went with Pilot abilities. She carries 28 fighters... the version I came up with for STO would be able to launch at most 24 fighters, which is nice.
If you are all going to ask for a full hangar pets make it least realizable and balance. Dont ask for OP ships. If you ask for pets, ask for more pets. But dont ask for more hangar slots, better hull and shield hp than any ship and create better tanking/aggro mechanics than any current God-Tier tanks currently in game.
Has anyone requested an OP ship? I havent seen one. The Typhon I requested would make a pretty bad tank, it would be nearly invulnerable, but incapable of generating or sustaining any reasonable level of threat once in Fortress Mode. And it has nearly 10k less hull than the T6 Excelsior... so theres that.
And I cant really say that the OPs suggestion is much in the way of OP either... it has big numbers, but nothing to really back those numbers up...
Then of course there is an issue of story. How to create a story wherein a race rewinds its military doctrine to 20th century earth where fighters valued in an age where precision weapons swat them like flies.
We're in a game where our characters respective factions are debating the use and dealing with the consequences of a weapon designed to erase things from the timestream... I think technobabbling in an excuse for why they are using fighters and full fledged carriers would be pretty simple....
Has anyone requested an OP ship? I havent seen one. The Typhon I requested would make a pretty bad tank, it would be nearly invulnerable, but incapable of generating or sustaining any reasonable level of threat once in Fortress Mode. And it has nearly 10k less hull than the T6 Excelsior... so theres that.
And I cant really say that the OPs suggestion is much in the way of OP either... it has big numbers, but nothing to really back those numbers up...
Not OP for DPS but OP for tanking. The OPs suggestion of making a special tanking mechanics would kill the current mechanics for tanking. Not only that, that would mean cryptic would spend so much time actually overhauling the tanking mechanics just to fit one ship. Time that they can spend more in improving the current mechanics rather than changing the whole mechanics for one ship. Imagine the time need to polish that programming including the latency problems we will experience.
Assuming no changes in the mechanics, That is why I said it doesnt need so much hull or shield modifier in previous post since the pets will be doing most of the damage. What I said needed most was a better hangar pet like frigate or greater hp.
But if the advantage of the ship is just 4 hangar pets at the expense of having 4 weapon slots, then I think there is no problem being it OP.
We're in a game where our characters respective factions are debating the use and dealing with the consequences of a weapon designed to erase things from the timestream... I think technobabbling in an excuse for why they are using fighters and full fledged carriers would be pretty simple....
By doing so, you change the whole mechanics of the game. The advantage of carriers of today is the fighters have more offensive firepower than any defensive scenario. In Star trek universe, you got a defensive superiority of a ship over any offensive firepower that a fighter can bring and the speed of a cruiser is just as fast or faster than fighter/hanger pet which isnt possible in carriers/ships of today. This is all due to harnessing of that energy into defense which absent in present day, cannot harness the nuclear power of the carriers into an energy shield nor make carriers fly at the speeds of supersonic.
The only reason I could think of a smaller ship overcoming the defenses of a larger ship is vast technological disparity. Which would mean an OP hangar pet. But as long as that is the only advantage of the ship while having everything else at a disadvantage(lower hull/lower shields, less weapon slots than the current carriers) I believe to be balanced.
To help it get out of tight situations it needs a dedicated weapon simular to the Annorax and Gal-x's Lance weapons. Since its a carrier, hows about a Tranphasic/Proton Rail Gun. Proton damage that automaticallly bypasses 40% of shields and 50% of DR. I'd buy that for a dollor.
Carrier pets, and all space combat pets, have been nerfed to the ground, and nerfed again. Some lack any user interface, and those that do simply fail to work.
There's also endless new abilities (AoE) that specifically target pets and make the only thing going for them, defense, worthless.
Try this: fly a Sarr Theln with its standard pets in CCA, and hit the recall button, any of the recall buttons, while standing still. Spam the recall buttons even. Spam all the carrier command buttons in rage, then wait a few minutes. The wave still takes them all out due to their failure to dock. So much for the Star leveling system.
I have no problem with a 3 and 3 weapon set up on a carrier, the introduction of more pet slots would allow for the ship class to have a more unique flare. I would think that allowing separate console slots for the pets and the ships would allow the pets to have a lot more punch. The free slotting of the two point defense consoles into a pair of dedicated slots, or as abilities through its own advancement system. Add command abilities and sicence abilities, it should be a defender/support ship with all main attack power through the pets.
Of course weather it would remain known as a typhoon or not is another thing as we used to have a npc typhoon ship in game.
Jesus... everytime I bring up the TYPHON someone comes in and refers to it as a TYPHOON... for crying out loud...
A typhOOn is this. (Please note the spelling typhOOn.)
TyphOn is this. (Again note the spelling... typhOn.)
Its as if reading comprehension isnt a skill that is taught in school... Here, listen to the dulcet tones of Sir Patrick Stewart and Michael Dorn pronounce it... also observe the size of the TYPHON. Shes compact... which is also why I went with Pilot abilities. She carries 28 fighters... the version I came up with for STO would be able to launch at most 24 fighters, which is nice.
That's a little uncalled for since all i did was misread it.
you really should calm down if something that simple upsets you.
"It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
All in All, I think cryptic should get a little more creative with thier ship design. There is no Law that says Escorts, Cruisers and Science ships have to be made to fit a certain criteria. If there is cryptic has already broken the mold making Tactical captains the King of the hill when it comes to flying any of the ships. Anyways, since STO has become Star Trek ship collector online and nothing else maybe we could start getting a wide variety of ships and stfs made specifically for one another.
P.S. Why in the hell haven't we gotten a Borg or Iconian STF simular to the 10 man CCA (Crystalline Catastophe mission we are currently doing for shards to fill the projects). Imagine a Massive Borg Mothership moving in toward earth or ESD and we have to defeat it before it reaches earth or game over. The Iconian one could be, we have to stop a solaine dysons sphere from coming through a Gateway or something. Dammit cryptic we need these. I bet we players have played cca over 10 million times, that should tell you something. Stop being so damn greedy and think about have fun playing a star trek game. One more thing, TRIBBLE all these damn ships, it a new ship here, there and everywhere. I know you have to make money but stop going the easiest route to do it. Make me a new stf to unlock and I'll pay you for it. That seems desperate and a little dirty all at the same time but we passed that along time ago. Give the players what they want.
By doing so, you change the whole mechanics of the game. The advantage of carriers of today is the fighters have more offensive firepower than any defensive scenario. In Star trek universe, you got a defensive superiority of a ship over any offensive firepower that a fighter can bring and the speed of a cruiser is just as fast or faster than fighter/hanger pet which isnt possible in carriers/ships of today. This is all due to harnessing of that energy into defense which absent in present day, cannot harness the nuclear power of the carriers into an energy shield nor make carriers fly at the speeds of supersonic.
No you dont... the mechanics of the game would remain the same... no different than with the 2 hanger carriers that we have now... the only difference being the addition of 2 extra hanger bays and the reductions of a few weapon slots... that wouldnt change the whole mechanics of the game... it would ADD to them
Youre treating carriers in Trek as a strike force in and of themselves. And in the modern day, a carrier is a strike force in and of itself, sure they travel with a battle group, but the main strike force of that group is the carrier, the rest of them are there as support.
In Trek, the times we saw fighters employed, they werent the heavy hitters, they were there as support and harassing fire. They were there to add more targets to the field. And thats what we need in game... a carrier with the ability to be flexible in its loadout, but not be part of the main force.
The only reason I could think of a smaller ship overcoming the defenses of a larger ship is vast technological disparity. Which would mean an OP hangar pet. But as long as that is the only advantage of the ship while having everything else at a disadvantage(lower hull/lower shields, less weapon slots than the current carriers) I believe to be balanced.
Its not about a single smaller ship overcoming the defenses of a larger one... its about a mass of smaller ships supporting the larger offensive giving the enemy more targets to shoot at, and a choice between death by a thousand cuts or death by blunt force. 2 hanger carriers dont put enough pets out to make that a choice...
The carrier should be support to both its pets, and the group it flys with... it should not be a front line ship like the ones we currently have.
To help it get out of tight situations it needs a dedicated weapon simular to the Annorax and Gal-x's Lance weapons. Since its a carrier, hows about a Tranphasic/Proton Rail Gun. Proton damage that automaticallly bypasses 40% of shields and 50% of DR. I'd buy that for a dollor.
If we are going to be realistic about this and based this on the power creep of Annorax, an improved version of a vesta.
This means the carrier you all asking for is an improved version of a fleet caitan carrier which we already have in T5U in the form of JHDC, Narcine or recluse.
I have no problem with a 3 and 3 weapon set up on a carrier, the introduction of more pet slots would allow for the ship class to have a more unique flare. I would think that allowing separate console slots for the pets and the ships would allow the pets to have a lot more punch. The free slotting of the two point defense consoles into a pair of dedicated slots, or as abilities through its own advancement system. Add command abilities and sicence abilities, it should be a defender/support ship with all main attack power through the pets.
You cant have both worlds. Less weapon slots for more hangar pets. You already got ships with 6 weapon slots with 2 hangar pet which wouldnt make you unique.
4 hangar pets would mean 4 weapon slots would make the ship unique.
Science abilities, you already got the carrier covering the Sci Boff slots. However, All the competent carriers have access to tac Commander boff slot even if the carrier has only 2 tac console slots.
Currently, we already got a Carrier that contributes more by using its Pets. Its called the Recluse. Besides the DPS those frigate pets contributes, It gives so much intagibles like APB3.
The point of a carrier is that it's pets do it's damage so I don't know why you gave it so many damn weapon slots.
Yeah, 8 weapon slots are a bit much. 6 at most. Plus you need to make it's fighter's have an active range of 20km so you can attack things outside of their range by quite a bit. But really, the true question about a super-carrier in STO is... if Cryptic can make a decent AI for the pets.
By doing so, you change the whole mechanics of the game. The advantage of carriers of today is the fighters have more offensive firepower than any defensive scenario. In Star trek universe, you got a defensive superiority of a ship over any offensive firepower that a fighter can bring and the speed of a cruiser is just as fast or faster than fighter/hanger pet which isnt possible in carriers/ships of today. This is all due to harnessing of that energy into defense which absent in present day, cannot harness the nuclear power of the carriers into an energy shield nor make carriers fly at the speeds of supersonic.
No you dont... the mechanics of the game would remain the same... no different than with the 2 hanger carriers that we have now... the only difference being the addition of 2 extra hanger bays and the reductions of a few weapon slots... that wouldnt change the whole mechanics of the game... it would ADD to them
No I am not taking about that. I am talking about the tanking mechanics change request by the op. There no issue if a carrier gets more hanger pets for less weapon slots.
In Trek, the times we saw fighters employed, they werent the heavy hitters, they were there as support and harassing fire. They were there to add more targets to the field. And thats what we need in game... a carrier with the ability to be flexible in its loadout, but not be part of the main force.
Which is current happening in current carriers. Except those asking for more haven't really maximized nor how to deal to with the current carriers. like I keep on saying it's no different from a beam user complaining that they can't deal nor contribute with their full beams.
What pushes dps to another level are the carrier, one particular carrier. Absent of that, your scimitar can only do so much.
Its not about a single smaller ship overcoming the defenses of a larger one... its about a mass of smaller ships supporting the larger offensive giving the enemy more targets to shoot at, and a choice between death by a thousand cuts or death by blunt force. 2 hanger carriers dont put enough pets out to make that a choice...
If that small mass of ships can really deal that much damage. In Star Trek you got larger harnessing more energy than smaller ships which can be transformed into defense.
Current 2 hangers already deal viable damage. For balance sake, this shouldn't be an issue if you lose 2 weapon slots for 2 additional hangar pets
Like just said in the previous post, if we are going to be realistic about this in consider every player, consider the power creep of annorax. The upgrade of a carrier would be just t6 narcine or t6 recluse or not those ships but similar those boff/console slots/hangar slots.
Comments
Sorry, but your fortress mode that takes weapons and hangers offline sounds about as useful as the Intrepid console (and does almost exactly the same thing)
Plus, why Pilot slots and not Command? this isn't an escort, it is a command vessel, right?
otherwise looks very very similar to the OP, but I still like the idea.
I really like this idea, and i wish PWE/Criptic would make fighters launch in 6's instead of 3's, if they're going to be as weak as they are currently. I'm fine with Frigates launching one at a time, for a max of 2 per bay (maybe limit the loadout to 2 frigates and 2 fighters to better control numbers.
Also somebody mentioned the AI, I second this ideal.
Somebody else mentioned making Fighters immune to warp core breaches, I think this is good too, also maybe (like WoW pets) making any pets take reduced damage from AOE abilities, to bring AoE damage in line with their own paltry HP pools
I was a bit harsh earlier. And I do like the idea of twin-linked turrets
The Fortress Mode is a toggle, that also grants a 20 second boost to shield regeneration. Once toggled on, Fortress mode stays active until toggled off, which then puts it into its 180 second cooldown. The Typhon could, theoretically, sit an entire battle in Fortress Mode, but it would be unable to influence it with weapons or extra fighters, just boff abilities.
Looking at the list of both Command abilities and Pilot abilities, abilities like Attack Patter: Lambda, Deploy Countermeasures, Clean Getaway, Reinforcements Squadron, and Hold Together seem much more useful over all, when compared to most of the Command abilities.
The twin turret seemed like the most logical progression for a ship meant to use its weapons for defense, and not offense, especially with the 'turret and single cannon' only limitation. (That limitation is also why the Typhon gets the most diverse fighter choice.)
That said, lacking for a better AI, fighters really really really really really really do need a permanent Scratch The Paint.
I feel like Fort Mode is still kinda meh, unless you were to include a 25% reduction on boff abilities c/d or maybe a redux that scales with sub-system power. Maybe the way it takes weapons offline is by cycling all your weapon power equally into your other subsystems? or perhaps buffs hanger pets HP, Shield and Damage by a % based on subsystem power? something to make it more viable. I dont hate the idea or anything, it just doesnt sound that useful to me by itself
Its literally meant to be as close to an invulnerability console as possible. The upside is that it makes you practically immune to all damage, for as long as you want. The downside is it removes you ability to fire weapons of any kind, and removes your ability to launch fighters. Whn you decide to toggle it off (whether it was active for 5 seconds or 10 minutes) the console goes into a 3 minute cooldown and you cant toggle it on until that is over. (I did use the Intrepid's ablative generator as a reference, thats why it appears similar... and its possible the generator was buffed after I thought it up, but that was the reasoning behind the console... and the Typhon in Star Trek Invasion actually did have a fortress mode)
The set bonus (between the console and the turret) grants your ship the ability to target pets and torpedoes automatically and allows the turret to shoot them, but allows no user control over the weapon targeting.
Right now hangers are on most of my ships but aside from my T6 escort carrier i find them useless.
i would love a much tougther carrier and i love the idea of using the ST Invasion typhoon carrier.
Of course weather it would remain known as a typhoon or not is another thing as we used to have a npc typhoon ship in game.
"It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
Advance peregrine per hangar slot is around 2-3k+ DPS. If you trait scramble fighters even more. Even more if you and your team are built for all damage or pet damage.
If you are all going to ask for a full hangar pets make it least realizable and balance. Dont ask for OP ships. If you ask for pets, ask for more pets. But dont ask for more hangar slots, better hull and shield hp than any ship and create better tanking/aggro mechanics than any current God-Tier tanks currently in game.
Then of course there is an issue of story. How to create a story wherein a race rewinds its military doctrine to 20th century earth where fighters valued in an age where precision weapons swat them like flies.
Jesus... everytime I bring up the TYPHON someone comes in and refers to it as a TYPHOON... for crying out loud...
A typhOOn is this. (Please note the spelling typhOOn.)
TyphOn is this. (Again note the spelling... typhOn.)
Its as if reading comprehension isnt a skill that is taught in school... Here, listen to the dulcet tones of Sir Patrick Stewart and Michael Dorn pronounce it... also observe the size of the TYPHON. Shes compact... which is also why I went with Pilot abilities. She carries 28 fighters... the version I came up with for STO would be able to launch at most 24 fighters, which is nice.
Has anyone requested an OP ship? I havent seen one. The Typhon I requested would make a pretty bad tank, it would be nearly invulnerable, but incapable of generating or sustaining any reasonable level of threat once in Fortress Mode. And it has nearly 10k less hull than the T6 Excelsior... so theres that.
And I cant really say that the OPs suggestion is much in the way of OP either... it has big numbers, but nothing to really back those numbers up...
We're in a game where our characters respective factions are debating the use and dealing with the consequences of a weapon designed to erase things from the timestream... I think technobabbling in an excuse for why they are using fighters and full fledged carriers would be pretty simple....
Not OP for DPS but OP for tanking. The OPs suggestion of making a special tanking mechanics would kill the current mechanics for tanking. Not only that, that would mean cryptic would spend so much time actually overhauling the tanking mechanics just to fit one ship. Time that they can spend more in improving the current mechanics rather than changing the whole mechanics for one ship. Imagine the time need to polish that programming including the latency problems we will experience.
Assuming no changes in the mechanics, That is why I said it doesnt need so much hull or shield modifier in previous post since the pets will be doing most of the damage. What I said needed most was a better hangar pet like frigate or greater hp.
But if the advantage of the ship is just 4 hangar pets at the expense of having 4 weapon slots, then I think there is no problem being it OP.
By doing so, you change the whole mechanics of the game. The advantage of carriers of today is the fighters have more offensive firepower than any defensive scenario. In Star trek universe, you got a defensive superiority of a ship over any offensive firepower that a fighter can bring and the speed of a cruiser is just as fast or faster than fighter/hanger pet which isnt possible in carriers/ships of today. This is all due to harnessing of that energy into defense which absent in present day, cannot harness the nuclear power of the carriers into an energy shield nor make carriers fly at the speeds of supersonic.
The only reason I could think of a smaller ship overcoming the defenses of a larger ship is vast technological disparity. Which would mean an OP hangar pet. But as long as that is the only advantage of the ship while having everything else at a disadvantage(lower hull/lower shields, less weapon slots than the current carriers) I believe to be balanced.
There's also endless new abilities (AoE) that specifically target pets and make the only thing going for them, defense, worthless.
Try this: fly a Sarr Theln with its standard pets in CCA, and hit the recall button, any of the recall buttons, while standing still. Spam the recall buttons even. Spam all the carrier command buttons in rage, then wait a few minutes. The wave still takes them all out due to their failure to dock. So much for the Star leveling system.
you really should calm down if something that simple upsets you.
"It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
P.S. Why in the hell haven't we gotten a Borg or Iconian STF simular to the 10 man CCA (Crystalline Catastophe mission we are currently doing for shards to fill the projects). Imagine a Massive Borg Mothership moving in toward earth or ESD and we have to defeat it before it reaches earth or game over. The Iconian one could be, we have to stop a solaine dysons sphere from coming through a Gateway or something. Dammit cryptic we need these. I bet we players have played cca over 10 million times, that should tell you something. Stop being so damn greedy and think about have fun playing a star trek game. One more thing, TRIBBLE all these damn ships, it a new ship here, there and everywhere. I know you have to make money but stop going the easiest route to do it. Make me a new stf to unlock and I'll pay you for it. That seems desperate and a little dirty all at the same time but we passed that along time ago. Give the players what they want.
No you dont... the mechanics of the game would remain the same... no different than with the 2 hanger carriers that we have now... the only difference being the addition of 2 extra hanger bays and the reductions of a few weapon slots... that wouldnt change the whole mechanics of the game... it would ADD to them
Youre treating carriers in Trek as a strike force in and of themselves. And in the modern day, a carrier is a strike force in and of itself, sure they travel with a battle group, but the main strike force of that group is the carrier, the rest of them are there as support.
In Trek, the times we saw fighters employed, they werent the heavy hitters, they were there as support and harassing fire. They were there to add more targets to the field. And thats what we need in game... a carrier with the ability to be flexible in its loadout, but not be part of the main force.
Its not about a single smaller ship overcoming the defenses of a larger one... its about a mass of smaller ships supporting the larger offensive giving the enemy more targets to shoot at, and a choice between death by a thousand cuts or death by blunt force. 2 hanger carriers dont put enough pets out to make that a choice...
The carrier should be support to both its pets, and the group it flys with... it should not be a front line ship like the ones we currently have.
If we are going to be realistic about this and based this on the power creep of Annorax, an improved version of a vesta.
This means the carrier you all asking for is an improved version of a fleet caitan carrier which we already have in T5U in the form of JHDC, Narcine or recluse.
This means a T6 version of JHDC/Narcine/Recluse.
You cant have both worlds. Less weapon slots for more hangar pets. You already got ships with 6 weapon slots with 2 hangar pet which wouldnt make you unique.
4 hangar pets would mean 4 weapon slots would make the ship unique.
Science abilities, you already got the carrier covering the Sci Boff slots. However, All the competent carriers have access to tac Commander boff slot even if the carrier has only 2 tac console slots.
Currently, we already got a Carrier that contributes more by using its Pets. Its called the Recluse. Besides the DPS those frigate pets contributes, It gives so much intagibles like APB3.
Yeah, 8 weapon slots are a bit much. 6 at most. Plus you need to make it's fighter's have an active range of 20km so you can attack things outside of their range by quite a bit. But really, the true question about a super-carrier in STO is... if Cryptic can make a decent AI for the pets.
No I am not taking about that. I am talking about the tanking mechanics change request by the op. There no issue if a carrier gets more hanger pets for less weapon slots.
Which is current happening in current carriers. Except those asking for more haven't really maximized nor how to deal to with the current carriers. like I keep on saying it's no different from a beam user complaining that they can't deal nor contribute with their full beams.
What pushes dps to another level are the carrier, one particular carrier. Absent of that, your scimitar can only do so much.
If that small mass of ships can really deal that much damage. In Star Trek you got larger harnessing more energy than smaller ships which can be transformed into defense.
Current 2 hangers already deal viable damage. For balance sake, this shouldn't be an issue if you lose 2 weapon slots for 2 additional hangar pets
Like just said in the previous post, if we are going to be realistic about this in consider every player, consider the power creep of annorax. The upgrade of a carrier would be just t6 narcine or t6 recluse or not those ships but similar those boff/console slots/hangar slots.