Calling the ship a Carrier sounds so much more impressive than calling it a Tender. True we can only have a few ships out at once, but factor in the infinite number of ships we can deploy to fill those ranks and it starts to lean convincingly towards requiring a large ship to house all of those extra fighters. This is where those smaller ships with hangers become unrealistic.
I never suggested calling it a Tender - I suggest you read above. I suggested Calling it a Escort Carrier or Science Light Carrier or possibly a Operations Medium Carrier dependant upon 1, 2 or 3 hanger bays. Light Carriers would be mid sized hull (375-500 crew) with higher turn rate & 2 Hangers, and Medium Carriers would be larger Hull (650-800 crew) & 3 Hangers. Many Navy's classify carriers in that fashion based on the aircraft a carrier supports. Light Carriers would have 3 forward & 3 rear weapons slots . Medium Carriers would have 3 forward & 2 rear but an extra hanger of nimble fighters to attack/defend and tanker hull.
I also fully explained why any Fed Carrier does not have to be completely massive as you suggested like a KDF Vo'quv Carrier--it's out of touch with reality. It's drastically oversized but not far any of the reasons you identified. The fact remains the ship is so large is because it has has 4000 crew and those reasons are described from the following website?
[*] "The 4,000 strong crew size dramatically increases the expediency of ship repair during combat." Yet apprarently this ship repair rate has been broken for some time as one user identified and hasn't worked as intended.
[*] "This gigantic ship spans nearly 1,300 meters in length which is over 5 times the length of an average Klingon Bird-of-Prey." So it's going to be far larger than it needs to be to support a larger crew with provides no additional benefit. I'll have to validate that myself but likely better ways to address this on a new T6 ship.
REMEMBER this ship has 2 Hanger Bay's only so it's size has nothing to do with being a carrier, and there are far better ways to heal with a focus on Engineering Bridge stations, providing 1 additional hanger for large carriers even at the expense of a weapon slot. http://sto.gamepedia.com/Vo'Quv_Carrier
Then consider the Enterprise Flagship had a crew of 1000, and that was and is the Federation Flagship. Then realize that's a massive Starship which is what most want in a carrier something like the Vo'quv with a crew of 4000 (for no benefit) to gain for likely 2 hangers? The Alita Heavy Escort Carrier tactical ship with a Single hanger only has a crew of 200 and is half the hanger capability of the new Carrier being discussed. I realize I can present sound argument for my point of view based on clear support for idea's I hold, yet most go with their gut so it doesn't need to make sense they just need to like it--even if it's a massive, slow, and bulky carrier with 2 hanger bays and 4000 crew that don't provide the intended buff their supposed to. (Explained in post below)
I'm just surprised given some equally excellent designs (because their all good -- its a matter of alignment with expectations) I'd really like to see a mid sized carriers possible a heavy carriers. But none with a crew of 4000 because that is dreadnought territory.
Well I guess we'll find out the result by the end of the day. I'm certainly not a poor sport so if Alpha wins I'll say congratulations, yet will hope I perhaps gave some people things to think about.
Went Beta, because it reminds of the Galaxy and Nebula. Plus it looks more "trek" to me.
Regardless of which design wins, good job cryptic. All those designs look nice, and this is a great way to get the community involved. Any chance we'll also see new Romulan and KDF carriers as well?
Got a cat? Have 10 minutes to help someone make the best degree dissertation of all time?
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
Calling the ship a Carrier sounds so much more impressive than calling it a Tender. True we can only have a few ships out at once, but factor in the infinite number of ships we can deploy to fill those ranks and it starts to lean convincingly towards requiring a large ship to house all of those extra fighters. This is where those smaller ships with hangers become unrealistic.
I never suggested calling it a Tender - I suggest you read above. I suggested Calling it a Operations/Science Escort Carrier or Operations/Science Light Carrier or possibly a Operations/Science Medium Carrier dependant upon 1, 2 or 3 hanger bays depending if it gives up the equavalent 1, 2, or 3 weapons in the variant. Many Navy's classify carriers in that fashion based on the aircraft a carrier supports not a reference to a Tactical Escort Ship.
I also fully explained why any Fed Carrier clearly does not have to be completely massive as you suggested like a KDF Vo'quv Carrier--it's out of touch with reality. It's drastically oversized but not far any of the reasons you identified to supporting launching additional wing of fighters/shuttles after so many ensigns flew to their death, the fact remains the ship is so large is because it has has 4000 crew?
"The 4,000 strong crew size dramatically increases the expediency of ship repair during combat."
"This gigantic ship spans nearly 1,300 meters in length which is over 5 times the length of an average Klingon Bird-of-Prey."
Then consider the Enterprise Flagship had a crew of 1000, and that was and is the Federation Flagship. Then realize that's a massive Starship to gain likely 2 possibly 3 hangers. The Alita Heavy Carrier Escort a tactical ship with a Single hanger or half as many as the likely proposed new Fed Carrier only has a crew of 200 and is half the size of most Heavy Cruiser or a faction of the size of the Enterprise-F. I realize I can present sound argument for my point of view based on clear support for idea's I hold, yet most go with their gut so it doesn't need to make sense they just need to like it--even if it's a massive, slow, and bulky carrier with 2 hanger bays.
I'm just surprised given some equally excellent designs (because their all good -- its a matter of alignment with expectations) for what appear to be excellent mid sized carriers like Beta--at the expense of a faster more nimble Carriers with perhaps a Crew compliment of say 450-550?
Well I guess we'll find out the result by the end of the day. I'm certainly not a poor sport so if Alpha wins I'll say congratulations, yet will hope I perhaps gave some people things to think about.
This game doesn't classify ships into heavy cruiser or light cruiser or anything like that, so I highly doubt the devs are going to start nit picking carrier classifications. The only tack-on we have for carriers are those of the dreadnought variety.
the 4k crew mechanic is just leading back to the fact that, and the devs know this, crew as it relates to starship surviveability/repair is entirely broken, the system does not work as intended. The devs even posted about it saying it doesn't work and do we the players think it should be simply removed, to which we replied "how about you fix it?" The torpedoes that are supposed to knock out 20 crew or 20%, whichever is lower were always going with 20% it seems, so on ships like the voquv, a single torpedo hit would take out 800 crew and then once your crew got wrecked in combat it would take you waaaaaay longer to get them back compared to ships with smaller crew. Also small crew at 100% would repair your ship just as efficiently as 4000 crew at 100%, which is obviously a massive discrepancy. Also small crews were better protected by crew damage resistance than large crews. If you put crew damage resistance on the voquv, you'd hardly notice a difference in die off, but slap it on a bird of prey or defiant and your crew became invincible and you kept full passive repair values while the carrier next to you is languishing with the 20 surviving crew after 4 torp hits.
If the devs would actually bother fixing the crew mechanic, ships with massive crew could actually be highly desirable tanks that are so self-healing that they could actually use their boff abilities as support for their team. It would be delightful if "Crew 2.0: It actually works!" could launch with this carrier. With actual working crew, they could even give a ship like this a universal console or a trait like "superior medical facilities." that increases crew damage resistance/recovery rate to further enhance the ship's native repair/tanking ability freeing boff powers for support.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
I have to remember to use Quotes so people will know who I am talking to. I was responding to mulgannon2's post at that time about why we are calling them Carriers when we can only field a dozen fighters, but as for your post, it is my understanding that this thing is to pick out a Carrier, a full size carrier with 2 hangers. Not a light Carrier, Jeep Carrier, Escort Carrier, Science escort carrier, Assault carrier or whatever, we already have quite a few of those and frankly we don't need any more, and I certainly hope that people aren't wasting Carrier votes looking for another blasted Escort with a hanger. The fact that the ship only has 2 hangers and can only field a dozen ships at a time is irrelevant, there is supposed to be a level of imagination being brought to the table by the player and a single hanger can be a very large space.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
I'm sorry for asking for a LARGE Carrier. A carrier that is MEANT to look like it can HOLD Capacious Hangers. Huge Hangers. Large Hangers. Oh right, sorry for making out a point that for a Carrier to really be a carrier, it needs more than just 6 Fighters. That is just a rapid deployment, Oh hey! We need some fighters in this area! Send a Transport. Where the slow, and bulkiness of a Real Carrier would make it vulnerable. But, if people want to vote for a new Escort, let them. At least 6 Fighters coming from a ship the size of the Defiant is more Believable than 6 Fighters coming from a Dreadnought.
I have to remember to use Quotes so people will know who I am talking to. I was responding to mulgannon2's post at that time about why we are calling them Carriers when we can only field a dozen fighters, but as for your post, it is my understanding that this thing is to pick out a Carrier, a full size carrier with 2 hangers. Not a light Carrier, Jeep Carrier, Escort Carrier, Science escort carrier, Assault carrier or whatever, we already have quite a few of those and frankly we don't need any more, and I certainly hope that people aren't wasting Carrier votes looking for another blasted Escort with a hanger. The fact that the ship only has 2 hangers and can only field a dozen ships at a time is irrelevant, there is supposed to be a level of imagination being brought to the table by the player and a single hanger can be a very large space.
I think you misunderstood my intented message. I referenced the current T6 Command Cruisers having 1 hanger, as does the T6 Alita Escort Carrier. I was just as confused myself for why they choose to call what would normally be a T6 Tactical Escort with the 'Carrier' designation at the end. They did this for Fed & Romulan ships but not the Klingon Raptor, yet Command Cruisers equally with a single hanger bay make no refence of it. The developer already identified most new ships would like support them moving forward with the exception of starships with the cruiser command abilities.
My only point if you go back and read one or two of my earlier posts, I was concerned using the label Carrier as a means to evaluate future ships in this contest, or vessels likely to include 2 hanger bays possibly but could include a T6 variant with 3 Hangers at cost of a weapons slot? Was that many people evalutaing the designs may discount a lot of the hulls become they look like science vessels, or medium or heavy cruisers or something else--because Cruiser to them means only one thing LARGE or MASSIVE. Yet there's nothing in any of the past or present carrier design as to why this is the case exept for what a website identified as the larger crews increased hull repair healing which another user identifed in this thread is broken and does work.
So if large crew compliments were only put there to support simply act as diagnostic and repair engineers to trigger a faster (but long broken hull repairing mechanic) these ships aren't gaining any tankyness to being bigger, less maneuverable, and easier to hit health benefit over Starships with a far smaller crew they why no categorize them correct? These aren't Death Star Assault Cruisers designed to launch planetary invasion fleets... Their Support ships with 2 Hanger Bays in a ship that favores Science Consoles, and push for 3 in one that favors Engineering Consoles. We could reclassify all 2 Hanger Carriers as Light and those with 3 as Medium (which sacrifice an additional weapons slot). Light Carriers would be more Mid sized hulls with better turn rate and science powers, and Medium Carriers would be Larger Hull with less maneuverability but Engineers to heal to make them tanky.
Then offer Starships with Cruisers Command set with no Hangers, Starships with Tacitcal Command set with 1 Hanger like Command Cruisers, Light Carriers with 2 Hangers 3 front weapons & 3 back, whereas the final class of Medium Carriers include 3 Hangers with 3 front weapons & 2 back.
Doing that would appeal to both audiences those who love the pilot ships which are quite popular but mix it up by offer a mid sized higher turn rate vessel along with a larger less adgile but more tanky ship that relies on an extra 2 wings or 18 fighters and shuttle to offset it's lower turn rate.
'mulgannon2' I think your second paragraph starts off in the right direction because clearly 'pwlaughingtrendy' and the whole team around him has likely put a lot of though, effort, and time into creating some unique concepts. By equally the same token you need to realize everyone is going to have different notions in their mind as to their vision for what these ships should look like. Perhaps most should reset expectations of Carriers based on the two earlier posts I made to this thread, carriers in Star Trek aren't Aircraft Carriers or Star Destroyers holding 100's of craft, they do not 'require' a crew of 2500 like a KDF Vo'quv Carrier in a support role--they could as easily have a regular crew compliment of 575 or 2500. At best they have two to three times the hanger bay capacity of any starship, just most don't launch fighters during tactical maneuvers.
Many will talk about the design elements they least like for a ship they didn't vote for, this is primarily to gain support for their position, others may be divided and state less favorable things about both--as the ship they really like isn't being voted on quite yet. Even the ship I feel is least deserving shouldn't earn any less than a C+ rating, not because it's of a poor design - they artist representation just didn't align to my expectation. Also it's equally possible as more detailed drawings or renders are presented as the field narrows people views may positively change.
I voted for BETA because I'd hope it not be a HUGE but medium Starship footprint and moderate crew allowance with a preference for a Science/Engineering 'Escort Carrier' or 'Light Carrier'--not referring to escorts which or primarily Tactical Starships. A ship with the additional Hangers & Cargo capabilities required in a support role with better maneuverability rather than a massive footprint.
In the Star Trek Universe, there is only 1 Mention of Fighters. When Sisko is returning with a fleet to reclaim DS9 and those "Fighters" are the Marquise Fighters, no larger than a runabout. A shuttle if you will. A runabout has a crew compliment of 5. To me that is not a fighter, that is a shuttle. A transportation device. A Fighter, is a 1 man, maybe 2 man killing machine with guns and missiles with a high top speed and maneuverability. So the current designs are all designed to Launch Shuttles. When I look at these ships, I see shuttles coming out, not a fighter wing. It doesn't need to look like a brick to launch fighters. It doesn't even need to look like a Star Destroyer, or Air Craft Carrier. These ships from the immediate look, do not say Carrier or even a Light Carrier. I see Federation regular starships that got hit by the Ugly Bat.
I am glad you enjoy these ugly designs, but I do not. As it is being stated over and over again by many people that they are only voting for the less of the ugly since we have no other choices. If they wanted to Design new ships, thats great get our feedback. But sadly, what we are seeing, will be the final drafts and put into the game. Regardless of what we think. They will take the "Most Popular out of the Ugly" and put that in game first with a few "Customization's" and hopefully we can make it look a lot less Ugly.
But sadly, none of these are saying Carrier. But I guess a carrier in Star Trek only needs to carry 6 fighters to be called a Carrier.
Although not part of the game, and even yet not even in the same "Universe" But I recommend looking at the Carriers in the X3 Games and see how many fighters they can launch. Then look at this game and ask yourself, Honestly, is 6 Fighters a Carrier, or a rapid deployment and run ship? Because from what I see, 6 Fighters does not make a Carrier. When I think Carrier I am seriously looking at 20+ fighters being deployed, not a measly 6 Shuttlecraft.
There are more fighters in the Star Trek universe than just one 'mention'.
When the Borg first invaded Sector 001 (Earth), interplanetary defence fighters intercepted the Borg cube, launched from Mars (more specifically Utopia Planitia base).
Later there were the training fighters that Starfleet Academy had.
Scorpions were also fighters.
There's a few fighters that were used by various species that various captains encountered in the TV shows and movies. Just because the main focus was capital starships, doesn't mean they haven't used smaller craft than even multi-person shuttles.
It's looking pretty close. Not sure what's popular on twitter, Alpha is winning the forums and looks like Beta is winning Facebook. The twitter might be the decider for who won this round.
But sadly, none of these are saying Carrier. But I guess a carrier in Star Trek only needs to carry 6 fighters to be called a Carrier.
I'd link you to another post about a Tier 6 Carrier-concept, but it'd be better for you to read my response. A "carrier in Star Trek" as you put it, could do with being able to spew out fighters..but you seem to be forgetting that this is a video game, and therefore doesn't have infinite amounts of (disk) space to make that belief possible.
In that post, there's mention of "why carriers in this game only have 2 hangars" - a perfectly plausible solution is that while modern day carriers can carry and deploy approx. 40-50 aircraft, that is virtually all of it's armament. In STO, our carriers are, essentially, glorified and somewhat-oversized science vessels - they still have weapons, which is why they can only have, at most, 12 fighters/other small craft out.
You also seem to be forgetting that while the carriers can only have 6-12 fighters out at any one time, their complement of said small craft is not "only" 6-12. If it were, they would only be able to use those 2 hangars-worth of pets before they were ultimately destroyed - thus defeating the object of being a carrier.
My point still stands. We need Dedicated Carriers if they want to call them Carriers. Carrying 6-12 Fighters is NOT a Carrier. Its a Deployment Vessel. A freaking Military Transport that can defend itself since it lacks the Heavy Firepower of an Escort, Cruiser, Battle cruiser, Dreadnought. 6 Fighters on a Transport is a good number of Fighters for it to Launch. But if you give me a ship the size of a Cruiser and give me 12 Fighters, I will laugh at you (as the ship designer) and approve a Light Carrier with 20 Fighters over your Cruiser with 12 Fighters.
Also X3 is a Video Game, with Military Transports that can carry 4-6 Fighters, Light Carriers with 20 Fighters, and Real Carriers with 40+ Fighters. So are we flying Military Transports, or Carriers?
You're right. in most sci-fi shows/books, only Cruisers like (Star Wars ref here) a Mon Cal MC-80 can carry 3 squadrons of 12 fighters each, ALONG with support craft, landing craft/ground assault vehicles... Or Star Destroyers with 6 squadrons of TIE Star Fighters (usually smaller than the Rebel ships...
Sadly. this is STO, and STO carriers are meant to only have 12 fighters/shuttlecraft, or 4 total attack ships (Bird of Prey, JHAS, etc.) onboard. reasoning for this, is it requires no programming of balance changes. Which I understand....
What I don't understand is that the only one of these that even looks like it could support a full 12 fighters/shuttles, is #TeamTheta ... and it still looks more like a Heavy Escort Carrier.
Also, knowing that at the end of this last featured episode, T'Ket swears vengeance... and can possibly amass a large fleet of heralds under his/her own command (sorry, if they're supposed to be female or omnisexual... he sounds an awful lot like a mean)............... then we NEED to have DEDICATED military carriers, capable of launching 4 escorts or 12 fighters/shuttles. not these puny designs of Heavy Escorts with hangar bays.
No hangar bay aboard an HEC should be able to carry another escort or heavy escort. They're just too big. That's where Theta at least makes since, with a large hull...
But NONE of them make sense, because not one of them is designed to even look like a carrier.... unless they just scale them to be the size of a Jem Dreadnaught...then that'd be understandable.
I think we really need to lose this "Sleek" nonsense when shopping for a Carrier, a sleek Carrier is an oxymoron or at least it should be in any discussion that isn't about something ridiculous. There might be more to like if there was more to see in the designs. I think they should get rid of the off sized warp engines, make them all the same size or replace them with something else, a weapons or sensor pod, because right now all of the quad designs with tiny extra warp engines just look like they threw them in there as an afterthought to fill the space.[/quote]
Of course they did. They took designs of hulls/nacelles/saucers/etc. that they already have and incorporated them into these HECs.
In honesty, I prefer the Delta Saucer, with the Beta Hull/Nacelles.
I don't really like that beak shape or whatever it is at the front of the Delta, I imagine it's an open tube with a navigation deflector in the middle of it. It looks like the same front end as that on the Alpha. I've made a game of finding all of the bits in these designs that are just copied and pasted to one another. If that's all they were going to do thinking these up, why didn't they let us pick the puzzle pieces?
Of course they did. They took designs of hulls/nacelles/saucers/etc. that they already have and incorporated them into these HECs.
That's the thing, where does it say these are HECs, we're supposed to be picking a Carrier, nowhere does it say HEC, these designs are misleading people.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
The way I would have handled carriers and such had I been the designer of the game was each ship has X capacity and each wing takes up X capacity. Example: Shuttle pods and drones take up 1 capacity each, a wing of shuttles takes up 2 capacity each, runabouts have a capacity of 3, a wing of fighters (like the Peregrine) takes up 4 capacity, a escort/raider takes up 6 capacity and Lt. Cruisers have a size of 7. A ship the size of the Defiant has 2 capacity, meaning it can only handle shuttle pods and drones where a Galaxy would have a capacity of 7. However escort/raider/Lt. Cruiser sized pets have a special requirement of full dedicated carriers. So the Galaxy wouldn't be able to carrier anything larger then a fighter but could take a wing of fighters and two wings of shuttles. A full fledged carrier (like the Vo'Quv) would have a capacity of say 16, the trade off would be a limit on weapons. It never made sense to me how the Fed ships couldn't launch their shuttle and support craft to aid them in combat.
I'm sorry for asking for a LARGE Carrier. A carrier that is MEANT to look like it can HOLD Capacious Hangers. Huge Hangers. Large Hangers. Oh right, sorry for making out a point that for a Carrier to really be a carrier, it needs more than just 6 Fighters. That is just a rapid deployment, Oh hey! We need some fighters in this area! Send a Transport. Where the slow, and bulkiness of a Real Carrier would make it vulnerable. But, if people want to vote for a new Escort, let them. At least 6 Fighters coming from a ship the size of the Defiant is more Believable than 6 Fighters coming from a Dreadnought.
A small vessel deploying any fighters at all doesn't seem to be as believable for me. I think they could scale up the deployment of fighters by vessel size.
Tiny starship: Satellites and turrets only.
Small starship: 3 fighters.
Medium starship: 6 fighters or 1 tiny starship.
Large Starship(breen carrier): 12 fighters, 1 small starship or 3 tiny starships.
Huge Starship (Scimitar size): 18 fighters, 3 small starships or 6 tiny starships.
---
Wow. Suppose each of those starships had a compliment of fighters as well?
3 small starships coming out of a huge carrier would give you a decent wing - 3 ships and 9 independent fighters.
None of the quad-nacelle ships look right with different-sized nacelles. Beta.
Yeah, I agree. If there's 4 nacelles, they need to be the same size. Hopefully, if a quad one wins, we'll have a tailor option to do so.
I like Alpha but yeah...Cryptic has been on a different size quad nacelle kick recently...not that there is anything wrong with it or anything...but I'd like the option to match up perhaps.
Just thinking every ship we've seen in trek canon with 4 nacelles always had 4 perfect matching...same with tri nacelles too actually...but yeah least give us the option for matching or different size?
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
while i still have to decide whether i will or will not buy whatever the end product will be (depends on the design and layout) there is no way i would do so if - if it will be a Quad Nacelle Ship - the Nacelles are of Different Size AND there is no way to alter this in the Tailor to have Perfectly Matching Nacelles, both the Nacelles itself AND the Struts they are installed on, i have no idea what the Idea behind that asymetric stuff is, looks HORRIBLE to me.
I think they are just using the extra nacelles to fill an empty space in the design, an art choice rather a practical one, I would prefer they add a detail to the hull or add some other sort of pod instead of just sticking on a dwarf warp engine.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
There are more fighters in the Star Trek universe than just one 'mention'.
When the Borg first invaded Sector 001 (Earth), interplanetary defence fighters intercepted the Borg cube, launched from Mars (more specifically Utopia Planitia base).
Later there were the training fighters that Starfleet Academy had.
Scorpions were also fighters.
There's a few fighters that were used by various species that various captains encountered in the TV shows and movies. Just because the main focus was capital starships, doesn't mean they haven't used smaller craft than even multi-person shuttles.
When the Borg approached Mars what we see are drones, called "Sentry Pods". And they are sized according to a Typhoon-class submarine, so those are quite large and would actually make sense to be in a Star Trek game. Starfighters don't.
The Academy ships were Peregrines (non-canon designation we also have in STO). Those were civilian couriers, repurposed by the Maquis because they have no access to actual weapons and combat capable ships and used in the Academy for flight training. Flight training. And they aren't called fighters but "flight instructor" in that context. They were used as attack fighters in DS9, the only scene this whole carrier nonsense in all of star Trek is based on, basically.
Scorpions are indeed fighters but seemingly sub-warp ones and judging by their aerodynamic hulls they are probably orbital craft, deployed for ground assaults. A starfighter in ship-to-ship combat in Star Trek makes no sense out of throwing a desperate charge or distraction (which was DS9 Sacrifice of Angels intention. Those attack shuttles were flying coffins, meant to disrupt the formation, not to cause any meaningful damage).
Other fighters that were not automatons or used to display a technologically inferior people (Kazon, Vadwaaur, Rakoosans - generally all of Voyager as the Delta quadrant was ina verage technologically inferior to the Alpha and Beta quadrant factions) are usually B'Rel or Defiant sized (Jem'Hadar attack fighter for example) because everything smaller is a waste.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I'm sorry for asking for a LARGE Carrier. A carrier that is MEANT to look like it can HOLD Capacious Hangers. Huge Hangers. Large Hangers. Oh right, sorry for making out a point that for a Carrier to really be a carrier, it needs more than just 6 Fighters. That is just a rapid deployment, Oh hey! We need some fighters in this area! Send a Transport. Where the slow, and bulkiness of a Real Carrier would make it vulnerable. But, if people want to vote for a new Escort, let them. At least 6 Fighters coming from a ship the size of the Defiant is more Believable than 6 Fighters coming from a Dreadnought.
You're doing it again - they can only have 6-12 fighters deployed at any one time, nowhere does this translate to anything remotely similar to carrying capacity. It was already explained why 12 fighters is a maximum deployment for carriers - if you chose to ignore the reasoning, let me give you an in-universe explanation.
The carrier's computer systems can most likely track more than 12 twelve fighters at a time, but in combat situations (where there are likely to be at least half a dozen allied ships in addition to the carrier and it's deployed fighters, plus any number of enemy entities a la "Sacrifice of Angels") it would be hard to track and report the positions of all those ships simultaneously even with 25th century technology. Hence why you don't see any more than 12 fighters deployed per carrier. There's also the lag issue (the reason that was given earlier on) - not everyone has a custom rig with a minimum of 3 top-of-the-range video cards.
Oh, and the Defiant's shuttlebay can only carry one Danube-class Runabout or 2 Type-8 Shuttlecraft. Which makes it only possible to carry 1 or 2 fighters using a ship of that size.
you know how it is going to go Alpha, Gamma, Epsilon and Omega. Not a single original design will make it through, just the old rehash designs of "Pointy" ships will make it. Not an original bone in the STO communities bodiy !
you know how it is going to go Alpha, Gamma, Epsilon and Omega. Not a single original design will make it through, just the old rehash designs of "Pointy" ships will make it. Not an original bone in the STO communities bodiy !
In the end it's going to be omega because it looks like the Jupiter, kinda. Cryptic could have saved the whole "competition" and just use that one.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
you know how it is going to go Alpha, Gamma, Epsilon and Omega. Not a single original design will make it through, just the old rehash designs of "Pointy" ships will make it. Not an original bone in the STO communities bodiy !
In the end it's going to be omega because it looks like the Jupiter, kinda. Cryptic could have saved the whole "competition" and just use that one.
i somehow have to agree....while i dont like any of those designs...Omega is at least the least ugliest of the Ugly ones :P and yea the similar look to the Jupiter Class, which has the Size and appereance of something one could call a Carrier is also an advantage of omega, so i gues Omega will be the winner.
Comments
I never suggested calling it a Tender - I suggest you read above. I suggested Calling it a Escort Carrier or Science Light Carrier or possibly a Operations Medium Carrier dependant upon 1, 2 or 3 hanger bays. Light Carriers would be mid sized hull (375-500 crew) with higher turn rate & 2 Hangers, and Medium Carriers would be larger Hull (650-800 crew) & 3 Hangers. Many Navy's classify carriers in that fashion based on the aircraft a carrier supports. Light Carriers would have 3 forward & 3 rear weapons slots . Medium Carriers would have 3 forward & 2 rear but an extra hanger of nimble fighters to attack/defend and tanker hull.
I also fully explained why any Fed Carrier does not have to be completely massive as you suggested like a KDF Vo'quv Carrier--it's out of touch with reality. It's drastically oversized but not far any of the reasons you identified. The fact remains the ship is so large is because it has has 4000 crew and those reasons are described from the following website?
[*] "The 4,000 strong crew size dramatically increases the expediency of ship repair during combat." Yet apprarently this ship repair rate has been broken for some time as one user identified and hasn't worked as intended.
[*] "This gigantic ship spans nearly 1,300 meters in length which is over 5 times the length of an average Klingon Bird-of-Prey." So it's going to be far larger than it needs to be to support a larger crew with provides no additional benefit. I'll have to validate that myself but likely better ways to address this on a new T6 ship.
REMEMBER this ship has 2 Hanger Bay's only so it's size has nothing to do with being a carrier, and there are far better ways to heal with a focus on Engineering Bridge stations, providing 1 additional hanger for large carriers even at the expense of a weapon slot.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Vo'Quv_Carrier
Then consider the Enterprise Flagship had a crew of 1000, and that was and is the Federation Flagship. Then realize that's a massive Starship which is what most want in a carrier something like the Vo'quv with a crew of 4000 (for no benefit) to gain for likely 2 hangers? The Alita Heavy Escort Carrier tactical ship with a Single hanger only has a crew of 200 and is half the hanger capability of the new Carrier being discussed. I realize I can present sound argument for my point of view based on clear support for idea's I hold, yet most go with their gut so it doesn't need to make sense they just need to like it--even if it's a massive, slow, and bulky carrier with 2 hanger bays and 4000 crew that don't provide the intended buff their supposed to. (Explained in post below)
I'm just surprised given some equally excellent designs (because their all good -- its a matter of alignment with expectations) I'd really like to see a mid sized carriers possible a heavy carriers. But none with a crew of 4000 because that is dreadnought territory.
Well I guess we'll find out the result by the end of the day. I'm certainly not a poor sport so if Alpha wins I'll say congratulations, yet will hope I perhaps gave some people things to think about.
Regardless of which design wins, good job cryptic. All those designs look nice, and this is a great way to get the community involved. Any chance we'll also see new Romulan and KDF carriers as well?
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/87XKSGH
It looks a bit like a Galaxy Class, I guess it's fun to see a spin-off of that.
(Big Galaxy Class fan here, heh.)
This game doesn't classify ships into heavy cruiser or light cruiser or anything like that, so I highly doubt the devs are going to start nit picking carrier classifications. The only tack-on we have for carriers are those of the dreadnought variety.
the 4k crew mechanic is just leading back to the fact that, and the devs know this, crew as it relates to starship surviveability/repair is entirely broken, the system does not work as intended. The devs even posted about it saying it doesn't work and do we the players think it should be simply removed, to which we replied "how about you fix it?" The torpedoes that are supposed to knock out 20 crew or 20%, whichever is lower were always going with 20% it seems, so on ships like the voquv, a single torpedo hit would take out 800 crew and then once your crew got wrecked in combat it would take you waaaaaay longer to get them back compared to ships with smaller crew. Also small crew at 100% would repair your ship just as efficiently as 4000 crew at 100%, which is obviously a massive discrepancy. Also small crews were better protected by crew damage resistance than large crews. If you put crew damage resistance on the voquv, you'd hardly notice a difference in die off, but slap it on a bird of prey or defiant and your crew became invincible and you kept full passive repair values while the carrier next to you is languishing with the 20 surviving crew after 4 torp hits.
If the devs would actually bother fixing the crew mechanic, ships with massive crew could actually be highly desirable tanks that are so self-healing that they could actually use their boff abilities as support for their team. It would be delightful if "Crew 2.0: It actually works!" could launch with this carrier. With actual working crew, they could even give a ship like this a universal console or a trait like "superior medical facilities." that increases crew damage resistance/recovery rate to further enhance the ship's native repair/tanking ability freeing boff powers for support.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
Yeah, I agree. If there's 4 nacelles, they need to be the same size. Hopefully, if a quad one wins, we'll have a tailor option to do so.
I think you misunderstood my intented message. I referenced the current T6 Command Cruisers having 1 hanger, as does the T6 Alita Escort Carrier. I was just as confused myself for why they choose to call what would normally be a T6 Tactical Escort with the 'Carrier' designation at the end. They did this for Fed & Romulan ships but not the Klingon Raptor, yet Command Cruisers equally with a single hanger bay make no refence of it. The developer already identified most new ships would like support them moving forward with the exception of starships with the cruiser command abilities.
My only point if you go back and read one or two of my earlier posts, I was concerned using the label Carrier as a means to evaluate future ships in this contest, or vessels likely to include 2 hanger bays possibly but could include a T6 variant with 3 Hangers at cost of a weapons slot? Was that many people evalutaing the designs may discount a lot of the hulls become they look like science vessels, or medium or heavy cruisers or something else--because Cruiser to them means only one thing LARGE or MASSIVE. Yet there's nothing in any of the past or present carrier design as to why this is the case exept for what a website identified as the larger crews increased hull repair healing which another user identifed in this thread is broken and does work.
So if large crew compliments were only put there to support simply act as diagnostic and repair engineers to trigger a faster (but long broken hull repairing mechanic) these ships aren't gaining any tankyness to being bigger, less maneuverable, and easier to hit health benefit over Starships with a far smaller crew they why no categorize them correct? These aren't Death Star Assault Cruisers designed to launch planetary invasion fleets... Their Support ships with 2 Hanger Bays in a ship that favores Science Consoles, and push for 3 in one that favors Engineering Consoles. We could reclassify all 2 Hanger Carriers as Light and those with 3 as Medium (which sacrifice an additional weapons slot). Light Carriers would be more Mid sized hulls with better turn rate and science powers, and Medium Carriers would be Larger Hull with less maneuverability but Engineers to heal to make them tanky.
Then offer Starships with Cruisers Command set with no Hangers, Starships with Tacitcal Command set with 1 Hanger like Command Cruisers, Light Carriers with 2 Hangers 3 front weapons & 3 back, whereas the final class of Medium Carriers include 3 Hangers with 3 front weapons & 2 back.
Doing that would appeal to both audiences those who love the pilot ships which are quite popular but mix it up by offer a mid sized higher turn rate vessel along with a larger less adgile but more tanky ship that relies on an extra 2 wings or 18 fighters and shuttle to offset it's lower turn rate.
it makes NO sense
what is the purpose??????????
Are these protrusions launch pa
There are more fighters in the Star Trek universe than just one 'mention'.
When the Borg first invaded Sector 001 (Earth), interplanetary defence fighters intercepted the Borg cube, launched from Mars (more specifically Utopia Planitia base).
Later there were the training fighters that Starfleet Academy had.
Scorpions were also fighters.
There's a few fighters that were used by various species that various captains encountered in the TV shows and movies. Just because the main focus was capital starships, doesn't mean they haven't used smaller craft than even multi-person shuttles.
In honesty, I prefer the Delta Saucer, with the Beta Hull/Nacelles.
You're right. in most sci-fi shows/books, only Cruisers like (Star Wars ref here) a Mon Cal MC-80 can carry 3 squadrons of 12 fighters each, ALONG with support craft, landing craft/ground assault vehicles... Or Star Destroyers with 6 squadrons of TIE Star Fighters (usually smaller than the Rebel ships...
Sadly. this is STO, and STO carriers are meant to only have 12 fighters/shuttlecraft, or 4 total attack ships (Bird of Prey, JHAS, etc.) onboard. reasoning for this, is it requires no programming of balance changes. Which I understand....
What I don't understand is that the only one of these that even looks like it could support a full 12 fighters/shuttles, is #TeamTheta ... and it still looks more like a Heavy Escort Carrier.
Also, knowing that at the end of this last featured episode, T'Ket swears vengeance... and can possibly amass a large fleet of heralds under his/her own command (sorry, if they're supposed to be female or omnisexual... he sounds an awful lot like a mean)............... then we NEED to have DEDICATED military carriers, capable of launching 4 escorts or 12 fighters/shuttles. not these puny designs of Heavy Escorts with hangar bays.
No hangar bay aboard an HEC should be able to carry another escort or heavy escort. They're just too big. That's where Theta at least makes since, with a large hull...
But NONE of them make sense, because not one of them is designed to even look like a carrier.... unless they just scale them to be the size of a Jem Dreadnaught...then that'd be understandable.
A small vessel deploying any fighters at all doesn't seem to be as believable for me. I think they could scale up the deployment of fighters by vessel size.
Tiny starship: Satellites and turrets only.
Small starship: 3 fighters.
Medium starship: 6 fighters or 1 tiny starship.
Large Starship(breen carrier): 12 fighters, 1 small starship or 3 tiny starships.
Huge Starship (Scimitar size): 18 fighters, 3 small starships or 6 tiny starships.
---
Wow. Suppose each of those starships had a compliment of fighters as well?
3 small starships coming out of a huge carrier would give you a decent wing - 3 ships and 9 independent fighters.
I like Alpha but yeah...Cryptic has been on a different size quad nacelle kick recently...not that there is anything wrong with it or anything...but I'd like the option to match up perhaps.
Just thinking every ship we've seen in trek canon with 4 nacelles always had 4 perfect matching...same with tri nacelles too actually...but yeah least give us the option for matching or different size?
When the Borg approached Mars what we see are drones, called "Sentry Pods". And they are sized according to a Typhoon-class submarine, so those are quite large and would actually make sense to be in a Star Trek game. Starfighters don't.
The Academy ships were Peregrines (non-canon designation we also have in STO). Those were civilian couriers, repurposed by the Maquis because they have no access to actual weapons and combat capable ships and used in the Academy for flight training. Flight training. And they aren't called fighters but "flight instructor" in that context. They were used as attack fighters in DS9, the only scene this whole carrier nonsense in all of star Trek is based on, basically.
Scorpions are indeed fighters but seemingly sub-warp ones and judging by their aerodynamic hulls they are probably orbital craft, deployed for ground assaults. A starfighter in ship-to-ship combat in Star Trek makes no sense out of throwing a desperate charge or distraction (which was DS9 Sacrifice of Angels intention. Those attack shuttles were flying coffins, meant to disrupt the formation, not to cause any meaningful damage).
Other fighters that were not automatons or used to display a technologically inferior people (Kazon, Vadwaaur, Rakoosans - generally all of Voyager as the Delta quadrant was ina verage technologically inferior to the Alpha and Beta quadrant factions) are usually B'Rel or Defiant sized (Jem'Hadar attack fighter for example) because everything smaller is a waste.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
:smiley:
You're doing it again - they can only have 6-12 fighters deployed at any one time, nowhere does this translate to anything remotely similar to carrying capacity. It was already explained why 12 fighters is a maximum deployment for carriers - if you chose to ignore the reasoning, let me give you an in-universe explanation.
The carrier's computer systems can most likely track more than 12 twelve fighters at a time, but in combat situations (where there are likely to be at least half a dozen allied ships in addition to the carrier and it's deployed fighters, plus any number of enemy entities a la "Sacrifice of Angels") it would be hard to track and report the positions of all those ships simultaneously even with 25th century technology. Hence why you don't see any more than 12 fighters deployed per carrier. There's also the lag issue (the reason that was given earlier on) - not everyone has a custom rig with a minimum of 3 top-of-the-range video cards.
Oh, and the Defiant's shuttlebay can only carry one Danube-class Runabout or 2 Type-8 Shuttlecraft. Which makes it only possible to carry 1 or 2 fighters using a ship of that size.
In the end it's going to be omega because it looks like the Jupiter, kinda. Cryptic could have saved the whole "competition" and just use that one.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
i somehow have to agree....while i dont like any of those designs...Omega is at least the least ugliest of the Ugly ones :P and yea the similar look to the Jupiter Class, which has the Size and appereance of something one could call a Carrier is also an advantage of omega, so i gues Omega will be the winner.