The blogs have specifically stated that they were building a pure carrier from the start.
To me, the old Jupiter was nothing more than an empty frame. A placeholder. It was recycled, and it was given a place in Starfleet. A function. I don't care if that entails a change in role, I appreciate their efforts, and I am getting this ship.
Just because a ship class resembles an earlier design, it doesn't automagically mean that the new class will inherit the role of the old.
And I'm rooting for Trendy that she can organize a similar event/promo/campaign for the KDF and Romulan sides too What you see is not "ignoring the other factions". This was a single production cycle for a new ship class, with the voting included in this case.
Post edited by kelettes on
"Ad astra audacter eamus in alis fidelium."
-
"To boldly go to the stars on the wings of the faithful."
This is honestly so entertaining. this is a VIDEO GAME. None of the stuff in the game is real. It is fictional. Imaginary. Virtual.
And this how y'all react to something that doesn't even exist unless your computer is turned on? That is just...sad. Like bordering on unhealthy, neurotic obsession with a space ship that doesn't really exist.
Maybe y'all need to turn your computer off. Go outside. Jump in some leaves. And maybe call a psychologist and work through these clearly deep seated issues you have with virtual content that you, for some reason, feel FORCED to pay for, as if Cryptic is holding a gun to your heads saying "But our new ship or you will die!"
Please get help. Love yourselves man. Have some self respect.
People flaming about things this way is why mmo's are usually so unpleasant to play. Because if the dev team is not catering to your exact whims, then you make it miserable for everyone else who is either content or happy.
Here is a concept, now I know it might be hard to understand. But please, do try.
A game. Is a thing. Meant to be fun.
you still with me?
A fun thing. But when a thing stops being fun. It's usually a good idea, to stop doing the thing that is only making you upset.
almost done, deep breath, long and slow. You're doing a great job.
If you're not having fun with the thing anymore. Stop doing it. Take a break. Play another game that only brings you enjoyment. But this? Boys please. All sarcasm aside from me. Get a life. One that doesn't hinge on virtual space ships maybe.
Wow. I have to wonder why this is upsetting you so much. Perhaps it is you who needs to get a life.
Well we the community voted for this ship, perhaps Cryptic should have given us a vote on whether it was mainly tac/sci/eng, orientated and int/pil/com, combination? just a thought
Its funny because Starfleet is not military. Starfleet is not about tactical war stuff. What are we? The mirror universe? Nope. This ship fits in perfectly for what Starfleet is about. And yet thats what everyone is mad about. A ship that is more true to what star trek and Starfleet is really about instead of ANOTHER pure war machine.
This is a very hypocritical player base. That's for sure.
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
The fact is the people saying no to 3 different version.. are the hypocrites.. as no one said 3 different skins or consoles.. you know much like the Odyssey 3 pack... they are only being self centered.. as people wanting more options to go with the equipment they already have, they are at least looking out for everyone be it tac, eng or sci...
The fact is this it to close to the Atrox and those style of ships do not fit well into the current meta of STO.. its been a long time since we got a dedicated carrier.. many were hoping it would be updated to fit the current meta.. not a dinosaur of the past STO end game meta.
I'm for one was kind a of surprised this ship layout was so lacking... 3/3 and the same 2 hangers on the biggest Starfleet ship in the game.. just.. odd. I was expecting at least a 3rd hanger or maybe a dedicated frigate wing + two hangers on the ship or it being a 4/3 lay out... meh something spice up such a aging design concept for new vision for T-6 carrier.. starting off with this Federation Carrier and followed up with a KDF and Romulan version... hell even a carrier command tree where you can summon in short term fighters and having buffs to fighters would of been a nice addition to come out with this.. right now though its very lacking.
So is it really too much to ask that the Jupiter V2.0 is actually a Jupiter V2.0, and not an Atrox V1.5?
Yes. It is. Because you were told, from the very beginning, that this was going to be a carrier. Not a Dreadnought. Not explicitly an upgraded Jupiter. A carrier. You idiots voted for the Jupiter-esque design, decided for yourselves it would be a Jupiter Dreadnought, and are acting disappointing when it turned out to be exactly the thing they promised instead of the thing you deluded yourselves into thinking it was going to be.
You know, I don't appreciate being called an idiot, especially by someone who doesn't know me, and who I haven't done anything to offend you (If my post really did offend you, I'm sorry, but even still JUST SKIP IT NEXT TIME!!!).
And besides, am I the only one who read the Dev Blog? Cause it states, and I quote: "Very early on, we were pretty sure this ship could potentially replace the Jupiter classDreadnought."
And this right here is a quote from Cryptic themselves, so excuse me getting excited of the potential of this ship.
Granted, it only says potentially, but even still, is it too much to assume that this ship could be both a Carrier and a Dreadnought (Narcine, for example)?
P.S. On a side note to Cryptic: Saw the Jupiter model in the Foundry. Got to say I really love it. It's the perfect Carrier with its size and those hangers. I might buy it, despite my reservations primarily about the Boff layout, simply because its possibly the best designed carrier in-game thus far.
P.P.S. After reading through most of the forum, I guess I should make it clear that I'm not a Tac player, and I don't want this carrier to be any more tactical. I'm an engineer. I just want it to be called a Dreadnought Carrier for the sake of the original Jupiter-class.
I would also like it if the Lt. Sci was another universal instead.
Oh look, now I can have both hull and shield healing AND intel slots (really should be command, though).
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Boldly going where no one has gone before!
So is it really too much to ask that the Jupiter V2.0 is actually a Jupiter V2.0, and not an Atrox V1.5?
Yes. It is. Because you were told, from the very beginning, that this was going to be a carrier. Not a Dreadnought. Not explicitly an upgraded Jupiter. A carrier. You idiots voted for the Jupiter-esque design, decided for yourselves it would be a Jupiter Dreadnought, and are acting disappointing when it turned out to be exactly the thing they promised instead of the thing you deluded yourselves into thinking it was going to be.
You know, I don't appreciate being called an idiot, especially by someone who doesn't know me, and who I haven't done anything to offend you (If my post really did offend you, I'm sorry, but even still JUST SKIP IT NEXT TIME!!!).
And besides, am I the only one who read the Dev Blog? Cause it states, and I quote: "Very early on, we were pretty sure this ship could potentially replace the Jupiter classDreadnought."
And this right here is a quote from Cryptic themselves, so excuse me getting excited of the potential of this ship.
Granted, it only says potentially, but even still, is it too much to assume that this ship could be both a Carrier and a Dreadnought (Narcine, for example)?
P.S. On a side note to Cryptic: Saw the Jupiter model in the Foundry. Got to say I really love it. It's the perfect Carrier with its size and those hangers. I might buy it, despite my reservations primarily about the Boff layout, simply because its possibly the best designed carrier in-game thus far.
P.P.S. After reading through most of the forum, I guess I should make it clear that I'm not a Tac player, and I don't want this carrier to be any more tactical. I'm an engineer. I just want it to be called a Dreadnought Carrier for the sake of the original Jupiter-class.
I would also like it if the Lt. Sci was another universal instead.
Oh look, now I can have both hull and shield healing AND intel slots (really should be command, though).
"sighs" this again?
The NPC version of the Jupiter is classified as a Dreadnought...since there is no player version it has no player classification.
The NPC version of the Vo'Quv is also classified as a Dreadnought...but there is a player version of the Vo'Quv and what is it? I'm glad you asked! The player Vo'Quv is a Sci heavy carrier...just like this new Jupiter!
So there you go...you got a replacement to the Jupiter Dreadnought!
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
Star Trek Online's rule seems to be that Carriers are generally Science focused ships.
The premier Carrier, the Vo'Quv, had Science Commander. The second Carrier in the game, the Kar'Fi has a science Commander, too.
Why is that? Well, that's the design guideline Cryptic used, of course, but what story reason might there be?
A big factor could be that the Carriers are not meant to be in the brunt of the battle - and so tactical abiltiies would be of less relevance. But they will be equipped with good sensors and probably also good electronic counter measures, which all fit into the Science (but also Intel) role. A real world Carrier generally tries not be all that close to enemy ships. It has for its size little armnament and without a fleet and fighter screen, its weaponry is insufficient to fight off against bigger foes, and focused on point defense.
In Star Trek Online, the science abilities basically represents a form of point defense and ECM system. You have abilities like Charged Particle Burst or Photonic Shockwave for close range point defense, you got Scramble Sensors or Jam Sensors to make enemy attacks ineffcient, you even got Mask Energy Signature to make your ship harder to locate, and ability like Gravity Well, Tyken's Rift, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Gravit Wel or Energy Siphon to limit your enemies mobility and offensive potential. And finally, if enemies get through, you can use Hazard Emitters and Transfer Shield Strength to deal with incoming damage. And you have Science Team to keep enemies from messing with your own sensors.
Even the innate Beam Target Subsystem fits that provile here, as it will weaken attackers.
But i know the cry for more tactical abilities will never stop, unless cryptic finds a way to make non-DPS roles relevant, or give engineering and science more DPS capabilities. (Maybe Kemocite should have been a science skill )
The Tact/DPS crowd already turned the Exploration Cruiser into a War Cruiser, by convincing Cryptic to put in a Lt.Cmdr Tactical BO instead a far more role-appropriate Lt.Cmdr Science BO.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
Star Trek Online's rule seems to be that Carriers are generally Science focused ships.
The premier Carrier, the Vo'Quv, had Science Commander. The second Carrier in the game, the Kar'Fi has a science Commander, too.
Why is that? Well, that's the design guideline Cryptic used, of course, but what story reason might there be?
A big factor could be that the Carriers are not meant to be in the brunt of the battle - and so tactical abiltiies would be of less relevance. But they will be equipped with good sensors and probably also good electronic counter measures, which all fit into the Science (but also Intel) role. A real world Carrier generally tries not be all that close to enemy ships. It has for its size little armnament and without a fleet and fighter screen, its weaponry is insufficient to fight off against bigger foes, and focused on point defense.
In Star Trek Online, the science abilities basically represents a form of point defense and ECM system. You have abilities like Charged Particle Burst or Photonic Shockwave for close range point defense, you got Scramble Sensors or Jam Sensors to make enemy attacks ineffcient, you even got Mask Energy Signature to make your ship harder to locate, and ability like Gravity Well, Tyken's Rift, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Gravit Wel or Energy Siphon to limit your enemies mobility and offensive potential. And finally, if enemies get through, you can use Hazard Emitters and Transfer Shield Strength to deal with incoming damage. And you have Science Team to keep enemies from messing with your own sensors.
Even the innate Beam Target Subsystem fits that provile here, as it will weaken attackers.
But i know the cry for more tactical abilities will never stop, unless cryptic finds a way to make non-DPS roles relevant, or give engineering and science more DPS capabilities. (Maybe Kemocite should have been a science skill )
The Tact/DPS crowd already turned the Exploration Cruiser into a War Cruiser, by convincing Cryptic to put in a Lt.Cmdr Tactical BO instead a far more role-appropriate Lt.Cmdr Science BO.
/sigh.. when those came out sci powers were many times more powerful then they are now {then again you may have not been around back then).. before the nerf bat of doom hit sci powers.. you could at that time turn a whole battle with them... as I stated.. and I guess you ignored.. that current meta the 3/3 2 hanger sci carriers just do not cut it anymore.. its a relic setup that does not do well with todays STO... so ya I and many other expected a update to those type of dinosaur ships of the past.
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
Star Trek Online's rule seems to be that Carriers are generally Science focused ships.
The premier Carrier, the Vo'Quv, had Science Commander. The second Carrier in the game, the Kar'Fi has a science Commander, too.
Why is that? Well, that's the design guideline Cryptic used, of course, but what story reason might there be?
A big factor could be that the Carriers are not meant to be in the brunt of the battle - and so tactical abiltiies would be of less relevance. But they will be equipped with good sensors and probably also good electronic counter measures, which all fit into the Science (but also Intel) role. A real world Carrier generally tries not be all that close to enemy ships. It has for its size little armnament and without a fleet and fighter screen, its weaponry is insufficient to fight off against bigger foes, and focused on point defense.
In Star Trek Online, the science abilities basically represents a form of point defense and ECM system. You have abilities like Charged Particle Burst or Photonic Shockwave for close range point defense, you got Scramble Sensors or Jam Sensors to make enemy attacks ineffcient, you even got Mask Energy Signature to make your ship harder to locate, and ability like Gravity Well, Tyken's Rift, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Gravit Wel or Energy Siphon to limit your enemies mobility and offensive potential. And finally, if enemies get through, you can use Hazard Emitters and Transfer Shield Strength to deal with incoming damage. And you have Science Team to keep enemies from messing with your own sensors.
Even the innate Beam Target Subsystem fits that provile here, as it will weaken attackers.
But i know the cry for more tactical abilities will never stop, unless cryptic finds a way to make non-DPS roles relevant, or give engineering and science more DPS capabilities. (Maybe Kemocite should have been a science skill )
The Tact/DPS crowd already turned the Exploration Cruiser into a War Cruiser, by convincing Cryptic to put in a Lt.Cmdr Tactical BO instead a far more role-appropriate Lt.Cmdr Science BO.
/sigh.. when those came out sci powers were many times more powerful then they are now {then again you may have not been around back then).. before the nerf bat of doom hit sci powers.. you could at that time turn a whole battle with them... as I stated.. and I guess you ignored.. that current meta the 3/3 2 hanger sci carriers just do not cut it anymore.. its a relic setup that does not do well with todays STO... so ya I and many other expected a update to those type of dinosaur ships of the past.
Does not cut it for who? You can do everything up to advanced content without a thought and for elite you either pour out enough DPS for it to be pointless or know the proper value of science ships.
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
Star Trek Online's rule seems to be that Carriers are generally Science focused ships.
The premier Carrier, the Vo'Quv, had Science Commander. The second Carrier in the game, the Kar'Fi has a science Commander, too.
Why is that? Well, that's the design guideline Cryptic used, of course, but what story reason might there be?
A big factor could be that the Carriers are not meant to be in the brunt of the battle - and so tactical abiltiies would be of less relevance. But they will be equipped with good sensors and probably also good electronic counter measures, which all fit into the Science (but also Intel) role. A real world Carrier generally tries not be all that close to enemy ships. It has for its size little armnament and without a fleet and fighter screen, its weaponry is insufficient to fight off against bigger foes, and focused on point defense.
In Star Trek Online, the science abilities basically represents a form of point defense and ECM system. You have abilities like Charged Particle Burst or Photonic Shockwave for close range point defense, you got Scramble Sensors or Jam Sensors to make enemy attacks ineffcient, you even got Mask Energy Signature to make your ship harder to locate, and ability like Gravity Well, Tyken's Rift, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Gravit Wel or Energy Siphon to limit your enemies mobility and offensive potential. And finally, if enemies get through, you can use Hazard Emitters and Transfer Shield Strength to deal with incoming damage. And you have Science Team to keep enemies from messing with your own sensors.
Even the innate Beam Target Subsystem fits that provile here, as it will weaken attackers.
But i know the cry for more tactical abilities will never stop, unless cryptic finds a way to make non-DPS roles relevant, or give engineering and science more DPS capabilities. (Maybe Kemocite should have been a science skill )
The Tact/DPS crowd already turned the Exploration Cruiser into a War Cruiser, by convincing Cryptic to put in a Lt.Cmdr Tactical BO instead a far more role-appropriate Lt.Cmdr Science BO.
/sigh.. when those came out sci powers were many times more powerful then they are now {then again you may have not been around back then).. before the nerf bat of doom hit sci powers.. you could at that time turn a whole battle with them... as I stated.. and I guess you ignored.. that current meta the 3/3 2 hanger sci carriers just do not cut it anymore.. its a relic setup that does not do well with todays STO... so ya I and many other expected a update to those type of dinosaur ships of the past.
It's not a good reasoning. If science is deemed underpowered, it must be fixed, not every science ship or carrier turned into a tactical battle war dreadnought carrier.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
So is it really too much to ask that the Jupiter V2.0 is actually a Jupiter V2.0, and not an Atrox V1.5?
Yes. It is. Because you were told, from the very beginning, that this was going to be a carrier. Not a Dreadnought. Not explicitly an upgraded Jupiter. A carrier. You idiots voted for the Jupiter-esque design, decided for yourselves it would be a Jupiter Dreadnought, and are acting disappointing when it turned out to be exactly the thing they promised instead of the thing you deluded yourselves into thinking it was going to be.
You know, I don't appreciate being called an idiot, especially by someone who doesn't know me, and who I haven't done anything to offend you (If my post really did offend you, I'm sorry, but even still JUST SKIP IT NEXT TIME!!!).
And besides, am I the only one who read the Dev Blog? Cause it states, and I quote: "Very early on, we were pretty sure this ship could potentially replace the Jupiter classDreadnought."
And this right here is a quote from Cryptic themselves, so excuse me getting excited of the potential of this ship.
Granted, it only says potentially, but even still, is it too much to assume that this ship could be both a Carrier and a Dreadnought (Narcine, for example)?
P.S. On a side note to Cryptic: Saw the Jupiter model in the Foundry. Got to say I really love it. It's the perfect Carrier with its size and those hangers. I might buy it, despite my reservations primarily about the Boff layout, simply because its possibly the best designed carrier in-game thus far.
P.P.S. After reading through most of the forum, I guess I should make it clear that I'm not a Tac player, and I don't want this carrier to be any more tactical. I'm an engineer. I just want it to be called a Dreadnought Carrier for the sake of the original Jupiter-class.
I would also like it if the Lt. Sci was another universal instead.
Oh look, now I can have both hull and shield healing AND intel slots (really should be command, though).
"sighs" this again?
The NPC version of the Jupiter is classified as a Dreadnought...since there is no player version it has no player classification.
The NPC version of the Vo'Quv is also classified as a Dreadnought...but there is a player version of the Vo'Quv and what is it? I'm glad you asked! The player Vo'Quv is a Sci heavy carrier...just like this new Jupiter!
So there you go...you got a replacement to the Jupiter Dreadnought!
This is a bogus argument... that's like saying.. there is a Defiant escort NPC.. but when the player version came out it was a carrier... but because there was no player defiant that the player defiant can be classed as anything...
don't bring up the NPC uses sci ability's.. as all player ships in STO can use sci powers.. sci powers, consoles, bridge officers are able to be used on any ship.
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
Star Trek Online's rule seems to be that Carriers are generally Science focused ships.
The premier Carrier, the Vo'Quv, had Science Commander. The second Carrier in the game, the Kar'Fi has a science Commander, too.
Why is that? Well, that's the design guideline Cryptic used, of course, but what story reason might there be?
A big factor could be that the Carriers are not meant to be in the brunt of the battle - and so tactical abiltiies would be of less relevance. But they will be equipped with good sensors and probably also good electronic counter measures, which all fit into the Science (but also Intel) role. A real world Carrier generally tries not be all that close to enemy ships. It has for its size little armnament and without a fleet and fighter screen, its weaponry is insufficient to fight off against bigger foes, and focused on point defense.
In Star Trek Online, the science abilities basically represents a form of point defense and ECM system. You have abilities like Charged Particle Burst or Photonic Shockwave for close range point defense, you got Scramble Sensors or Jam Sensors to make enemy attacks ineffcient, you even got Mask Energy Signature to make your ship harder to locate, and ability like Gravity Well, Tyken's Rift, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Gravit Wel or Energy Siphon to limit your enemies mobility and offensive potential. And finally, if enemies get through, you can use Hazard Emitters and Transfer Shield Strength to deal with incoming damage. And you have Science Team to keep enemies from messing with your own sensors.
Even the innate Beam Target Subsystem fits that provile here, as it will weaken attackers.
But i know the cry for more tactical abilities will never stop, unless cryptic finds a way to make non-DPS roles relevant, or give engineering and science more DPS capabilities. (Maybe Kemocite should have been a science skill )
The Tact/DPS crowd already turned the Exploration Cruiser into a War Cruiser, by convincing Cryptic to put in a Lt.Cmdr Tactical BO instead a far more role-appropriate Lt.Cmdr Science BO.
/sigh.. when those came out sci powers were many times more powerful then they are now {then again you may have not been around back then).. before the nerf bat of doom hit sci powers.. you could at that time turn a whole battle with them... as I stated.. and I guess you ignored.. that current meta the 3/3 2 hanger sci carriers just do not cut it anymore.. its a relic setup that does not do well with todays STO... so ya I and many other expected a update to those type of dinosaur ships of the past.
It's not a good reasoning. If science is deemed underpowered, it must be fixed, not every science ship or carrier turned into a tactical battle war dreadnought carrier.
Simple math.. easier to adjust a ship then to rework all the powers... Sci powers are forward arc built around more nimble sci ships... not 6 turn rate behemoths.. Carriers are not science ships.. they are hybrids.. and with current meta they don't work well at all..
One last attempt before I throw my hands up and simply decide that some people can and should never be pleased.
In game design there is this thing called a power curve. It indicates the average power of a given item or skill at that level of the metagame. Put something below that curve and it will never see play, because you'd be "doing it wrong". We've had this with the old Star Cruiser and Exploration Cruiser. Put something above the curve however, and nothing else will see play again, because you'd be a fool to play anything else and the power curve needs to be adjusted upwards in what we call "power creep". The Scimitar is a prime example for a ship far too high above the power curve.
Power creep led to every playable T6 cruiser having the ability to slot a LtC. Tac. But at that we're more or less at an equilibrium, which makes them balanced among each other. 4/4 weapons, LtC. Tac. Now if you introduced a ship that's 4/3 or 4/4 with a LtC. Tac., with the additional ability to field two wings of pets, guess what would happen? You'd have to be a bloody fool to fly anything else, until they introduced either the 5/5 cruiser or the 4/3 escort with two hangars.
Some of us don't want power creep. We're perfectly fine with being on the curve, which is where the Jupiter resides.
One last attempt before I throw my hands up and simply decide that some people can and should never be pleased.
In game design there is this thing called a power curve. It indicates the average power of a given item or skill at that level of the metagame. Put something below that curve and it will never see play, because you'd be "doing it wrong". We've had this with the old Star Cruiser and Exploration Cruiser. Put something above the curve however, and nothing else will see play again, because you'd be a fool to play anything else and the power curve needs to be adjusted upwards in what we call "power creep". The Scimitar is a prime example for a ship far too high above the power curve.
Power creep led to every playable T6 cruiser having the ability to slot a LtC. Tac. But at that we're more or less at an equilibrium, which makes them balanced among each other. 4/4 weapons, LtC. Tac. Now if you introduced a ship that's 4/3 or 4/4 with a LtC. Tac., with the additional ability to field two wings of pets, guess what would happen? You'd have to be a bloody fool to fly anything else, until they introduced either the 5/5 cruiser or the 4/3 escort with two hangars.
Some of us don't want power creep. We're perfectly fine with being on the curve, which is where the Jupiter resides.
Oh what self righteous nonsense... the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier and Kar'Fi Battle Carrier and the Xindi-Aquatic Narcine Dreadnought Carrier would like to say hi.. all 4/3 lt cmd tac with 2 hanger ships....
We could have saved a lot of tempers fraying, fractious arguments and free time wasted if the design process had of had more tiers.
Phase 1: Choose the skin (check).
Phase 2: Choose the hull, shield, turn rate, defence, weapons, console and hangar set up.
Phase 3: Choose the Boff layout.
In theory for phase 2 you could have 8 models for each where an increase in slots for one thing impacts radically on what you have available for the other. Players choosing the trade-off.
Phase 3 would be where you experiment with different primary layouts and give alternative options for the specialization.
The advantage of this is that the devs can retain a degree of control over what options are offered and after the event, the only people that those unsatisfied with the outcome can moan at... is the player base itself... and it would be self defeating because they would have de facto already lost the argument by way of democratic voting.
One last attempt before I throw my hands up and simply decide that some people can and should never be pleased.
In game design there is this thing called a power curve. It indicates the average power of a given item or skill at that level of the metagame. Put something below that curve and it will never see play, because you'd be "doing it wrong". We've had this with the old Star Cruiser and Exploration Cruiser. Put something above the curve however, and nothing else will see play again, because you'd be a fool to play anything else and the power curve needs to be adjusted upwards in what we call "power creep". The Scimitar is a prime example for a ship far too high above the power curve.
Power creep led to every playable T6 cruiser having the ability to slot a LtC. Tac. But at that we're more or less at an equilibrium, which makes them balanced among each other. 4/4 weapons, LtC. Tac. Now if you introduced a ship that's 4/3 or 4/4 with a LtC. Tac., with the additional ability to field two wings of pets, guess what would happen? You'd have to be a bloody fool to fly anything else, until they introduced either the 5/5 cruiser or the 4/3 escort with two hangars.
Some of us don't want power creep. We're perfectly fine with being on the curve, which is where the Jupiter resides.
Oh what self righteous nonsense... the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier and Kar'Fi Battle Carrier and the Xindi-Aquatic Narcine Dreadnought Carrier would like to say high.. all 4/3 lt cmd tac with 2 hanger ships....
How much does the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought and Xindi-Aquatic Dreadnought sell for on the exchange? Also the Kar'Fi has a lower hull over other carriers. I'm sure if the Jupiter has the same done to it people would scream "It's so big, why does it have crappy hull points!"
How much does the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought and Xindi-Aquatic Dreadnought sell for on the exchange? Also the Kar'Fi has a lower hull over other carriers. I'm sure if the Jupiter has the same done to it people would scream "It's so big, why does it have crappy hull points!"
Precisely, thank you.
I'm not saying that the lockbox ships are fine. They're not. They're also massive departures from the power curve, but their scarcity counteracts this to -some- degree. Putting a ship like that on the Zen-Store makes it the new baseline.
One last attempt before I throw my hands up and simply decide that some people can and should never be pleased.
In game design there is this thing called a power curve. It indicates the average power of a given item or skill at that level of the metagame. Put something below that curve and it will never see play, because you'd be "doing it wrong". We've had this with the old Star Cruiser and Exploration Cruiser. Put something above the curve however, and nothing else will see play again, because you'd be a fool to play anything else and the power curve needs to be adjusted upwards in what we call "power creep". The Scimitar is a prime example for a ship far too high above the power curve.
Power creep led to every playable T6 cruiser having the ability to slot a LtC. Tac. But at that we're more or less at an equilibrium, which makes them balanced among each other. 4/4 weapons, LtC. Tac. Now if you introduced a ship that's 4/3 or 4/4 with a LtC. Tac., with the additional ability to field two wings of pets, guess what would happen? You'd have to be a bloody fool to fly anything else, until they introduced either the 5/5 cruiser or the 4/3 escort with two hangars.
Some of us don't want power creep. We're perfectly fine with being on the curve, which is where the Jupiter resides.
Oh what self righteous nonsense... the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier and Kar'Fi Battle Carrier and the Xindi-Aquatic Narcine Dreadnought Carrier would like to say high.. all 4/3 lt cmd tac with 2 hanger ships....
How much does the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought and Xindi-Aquatic Dreadnought sell for on the exchange? Also the Kar'Fi has a lower hull over other carriers. I'm sure if the Jupiter has the same done to it people would scream "It's so big, why does it have crappy hull points!"
Oh give me a break.. man you people are stretching... hull hit points... ya because that's such a huge thing people bring up... come up with something better for your pathetic argument... /yawn
One last attempt before I throw my hands up and simply decide that some people can and should never be pleased.
In game design there is this thing called a power curve. It indicates the average power of a given item or skill at that level of the metagame. Put something below that curve and it will never see play, because you'd be "doing it wrong". We've had this with the old Star Cruiser and Exploration Cruiser. Put something above the curve however, and nothing else will see play again, because you'd be a fool to play anything else and the power curve needs to be adjusted upwards in what we call "power creep". The Scimitar is a prime example for a ship far too high above the power curve.
Power creep led to every playable T6 cruiser having the ability to slot a LtC. Tac. But at that we're more or less at an equilibrium, which makes them balanced among each other. 4/4 weapons, LtC. Tac. Now if you introduced a ship that's 4/3 or 4/4 with a LtC. Tac., with the additional ability to field two wings of pets, guess what would happen? You'd have to be a bloody fool to fly anything else, until they introduced either the 5/5 cruiser or the 4/3 escort with two hangars.
Some of us don't want power creep. We're perfectly fine with being on the curve, which is where the Jupiter resides.
Oh what self righteous nonsense... the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier and Kar'Fi Battle Carrier and the Xindi-Aquatic Narcine Dreadnought Carrier would like to say high.. all 4/3 lt cmd tac with 2 hanger ships....
How much does the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought and Xindi-Aquatic Dreadnought sell for on the exchange? Also the Kar'Fi has a lower hull over other carriers. I'm sure if the Jupiter has the same done to it people would scream "It's so big, why does it have crappy hull points!"
Oh give me a break.. man you people are stretching... hull hit points... ya because that's such a huge thing people bring up... come up with something better for your pathetic argument... /yawn
Actually, we don't have to. This is for your benefit. We're giving you guys the courtesy of an explanation, so you may realize that your suggestions are rejected by the devs, because they are not good for the health of the game. It doesn't matter if you believe us or not. The devs got it right anyway. As for you: You can either see the merit of our points or keep stomping your feet. Whatever makes your day better.
Observation: Disregarding intel, depending on what you slot in the uni seat, the abilities the ship might use come in the following configurations: 4tac3eng6sci, 2tac5eng6sci, 2tac3eng8sci. So I wouldn't really give it ltcom uni, because that would effectively enable a com sci + ltcom sci, which should imho be reserved for dedicated sci ships. What *might* be a sort of balanced option would be downgrading lt sci to en sci, and upgrading lt tac to ltcom tac, giving us these ability configurations: 5tac3eng5sci, 3tac5eng5sci, 3tac3eng7sci. This way, the ship as a whole would still lean towards sci, and with the intel taken into account, the capacity for space magic would be even more pronounced, thus possibly making everyone equally unhappy (hm... maybe then the intel seating could be moved to the new lt com tac, so that if someone desired a space magic build, they wouldn't have to sacrifice supportive eng abilites, but they would be free to put some intel goodies instead of bfaw and other non-supportive tac stuff?) ;-)
(too bad the devs probably wouldn't touch this thread with a 10-foot hyperspanner by now...)
We could have saved a lot of tempers fraying, fractious arguments and free time wasted if the design process had of had more tiers.
Phase 1: Choose the skin (check).
Phase 2: Choose the hull, shield, turn rate, defence, weapons, console and hangar set up.
Phase 3: Choose the Boff layout.
In theory for phase 2 you could have 8 models for each where an increase in slots for one thing impacts radically on what you have available for the other. Players choosing the trade-off.
Phase 3 would be where you experiment with different primary layouts and give alternative options for the specialization.
The advantage of this is that the devs can retain a degree of control over what options are offered and after the event, the only people that those unsatisfied with the outcome can moan at... is the player base itself... and it would be self defeating because they would have de facto already lost the argument by way of democratic voting.
No. It doesn't matter how many tiers( not a good idea anyway) there would have been, the whiners would have been out for blood anyway. There would have been no advantage whatsoever. The whining is mainly originated in people being delusional, negligent, and prone to wishful thinking, without caring to take the effort to read, or digest information. I have the bad feeling this was a one-time effort from Trendy, because this thread is not very rewarding. The ship is nice. There was no Fed carrier up until now. Take it or leave it, and move on.
Only the Thunderchild has the Point Defense Phaser and the Armitage has the Point Defense Photon Torpedoes. KDF side can aquire a Point Defense Disruptor, but only from a lockbox.
Granted, the Phaser and Disruptor consoles may be used on other classes of ships, but the Photon console can only be used on Akira-styled Escort Carriers. I'd wish they could also be used in this new carrier as well.
-AoP- Warrior's Blood (KDF Armada) / -AoP- Qu' raD qulbo'Degh / -AoP- ProjectPhoenix Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
Star Trek Online's rule seems to be that Carriers are generally Science focused ships.
The premier Carrier, the Vo'Quv, had Science Commander. The second Carrier in the game, the Kar'Fi has a science Commander, too.
Why is that? Well, that's the design guideline Cryptic used, of course, but what story reason might there be?
A big factor could be that the Carriers are not meant to be in the brunt of the battle - and so tactical abiltiies would be of less relevance. But they will be equipped with good sensors and probably also good electronic counter measures, which all fit into the Science (but also Intel) role. A real world Carrier generally tries not be all that close to enemy ships. It has for its size little armnament and without a fleet and fighter screen, its weaponry is insufficient to fight off against bigger foes, and focused on point defense.
In Star Trek Online, the science abilities basically represents a form of point defense and ECM system. You have abilities like Charged Particle Burst or Photonic Shockwave for close range point defense, you got Scramble Sensors or Jam Sensors to make enemy attacks ineffcient, you even got Mask Energy Signature to make your ship harder to locate, and ability like Gravity Well, Tyken's Rift, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Gravit Wel or Energy Siphon to limit your enemies mobility and offensive potential. And finally, if enemies get through, you can use Hazard Emitters and Transfer Shield Strength to deal with incoming damage. And you have Science Team to keep enemies from messing with your own sensors.
Even the innate Beam Target Subsystem fits that provile here, as it will weaken attackers.
But i know the cry for more tactical abilities will never stop, unless cryptic finds a way to make non-DPS roles relevant, or give engineering and science more DPS capabilities. (Maybe Kemocite should have been a science skill )
The Tact/DPS crowd already turned the Exploration Cruiser into a War Cruiser, by convincing Cryptic to put in a Lt.Cmdr Tactical BO instead a far more role-appropriate Lt.Cmdr Science BO.
/sigh.. when those came out sci powers were many times more powerful then they are now {then again you may have not been around back then).. before the nerf bat of doom hit sci powers.. you could at that time turn a whole battle with them... as I stated.. and I guess you ignored.. that current meta the 3/3 2 hanger sci carriers just do not cut it anymore.. its a relic setup that does not do well with todays STO... so ya I and many other expected a update to those type of dinosaur ships of the past.
It's not a good reasoning. If science is deemed underpowered, it must be fixed, not every science ship or carrier turned into a tactical battle war dreadnought carrier.
Simple math.. easier to adjust a ship then to rework all the powers... Sci powers are forward arc built around more nimble sci ships... not 6 turn rate behemoths.. Carriers are not science ships.. they are hybrids.. and with current meta they don't work well at all..
Sure, easy math, but not good for the game.
See, if it's always just about the power of a ship, Cryptic can easily make new ships. Just add a mechanical bonus and sell the same ship again. The boards sometimes make it look as t his would work just great with the current players and Cryptic could get really rich for no effort whatsoever. Except it wouldn't really work, because people would eventually feel that they are duped. And then Cryptic would have to fix the mess they created and hope to regain the trust of the players fast enough so they start buying again. That's why Cryptic's sell-power-creep method has to be more subtle.
And not all Science powers are firing arc based. Many aren't. They just happen to be not the one that are currently as useful. Gravity Well, Tachyon Beam and Destabilizing Resonant Beam have an arc, but Scramble Sensors, Photonic Shockwave, Tractor Beam Repulsors or Charged Particle Burst do not. it would be comparitively easy to make Photonic Shockwave or Charged Particle Burst more powerful. PSW could ignore shields like every other science damage power, and CPB could simply drain more shields, or cause a shield hardness debuff.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
We could have saved a lot of tempers fraying, fractious arguments and free time wasted if the design process had of had more tiers.
Phase 1: Choose the skin (check).
Phase 2: Choose the hull, shield, turn rate, defence, weapons, console and hangar set up.
Phase 3: Choose the Boff layout.
In theory for phase 2 you could have 8 models for each where an increase in slots for one thing impacts radically on what you have available for the other. Players choosing the trade-off.
Phase 3 would be where you experiment with different primary layouts and give alternative options for the specialization.
The advantage of this is that the devs can retain a degree of control over what options are offered and after the event, the only people that those unsatisfied with the outcome can moan at... is the player base itself... and it would be self defeating because they would have de facto already lost the argument by way of democratic voting.
No. It doesn't matter how many tiers( not a good idea anyway) there would have been, the whiners would have been out for blood anyway. There would have been no advantage whatsoever. The whining is mainly originated in people being delusional, negligent, and prone to wishful thinking, without caring to take the effort to read, or digest information. I have the bad feeling this was a one-time effort from Trendy, because this thread is not very rewarding. The ship is nice. There was no Fed carrier up until now. Take it or leave it, and move on.
Yeah, even with the design contest, there were tons of people saying stuff like "leave it up to the majority to choose the ugliest design"... Even if there *was* a three ship bundle in an attempt to please the tac and eng crowds as well, people would probably still complain that "everyone just flies the tac version because it gets you the best dps and you are forced to pay for the useless sci and eng variants to get the console set and alternate skins..."
...still, it *would* have been nice to vote on more than just the outer polygon shell...
Quite a blunt and brusque way of dismissing the idea.
(not a good idea anyway)
If you are going to be dismissive of an idea, the onus is on you to at least offer reasons as to why you think it is not a good idea... unless you just wish to be rude of course.
the whiners would have been out for blood anyway.
Quite possibly but there's no reason to be all "blood cries out for blood" about it, as some people seem to have been. The whole reason I thought about the alternative process was to find ways of taking heat off the developers and actually give players a greater sense of ownership and investment in a ship, while simultaneously shutting down those with overinflkated complaints by pointing out "you voted, you lost to everyone else... that's how democracy works".
The ship is nice. There was no Fed carrier up until now. Take it or leave it, and move on.
It's all right, not the greatest IMHO but nothing worth losing sleep/temper/tears/blood over. I'm not going to get upset about it. You seem to be forgetting the Atrox unless you mean a Starfleet Federation carrier.
I have one Fed toon who currently uses the carrier (Atrox). I may get the new ship for him (solely as a shortcut to T6 and because I don't like the over shiny look of the Atrox).
I'm genuinely fed up of people being argumentative on both sides.
We could have saved a lot of tempers fraying, fractious arguments and free time wasted if the design process had of had more tiers.
Phase 1: Choose the skin (check).
Phase 2: Choose the hull, shield, turn rate, defence, weapons, console and hangar set up.
Phase 3: Choose the Boff layout.
In theory for phase 2 you could have 8 models for each where an increase in slots for one thing impacts radically on what you have available for the other. Players choosing the trade-off.
Phase 3 would be where you experiment with different primary layouts and give alternative options for the specialization.
The advantage of this is that the devs can retain a degree of control over what options are offered and after the event, the only people that those unsatisfied with the outcome can moan at... is the player base itself... and it would be self defeating because they would have de facto already lost the argument by way of democratic voting.
No. It doesn't matter how many tiers( not a good idea anyway) there would have been, the whiners would have been out for blood anyway. There would have been no advantage whatsoever. The whining is mainly originated in people being delusional, negligent, and prone to wishful thinking, without caring to take the effort to read, or digest information. I have the bad feeling this was a one-time effort from Trendy, because this thread is not very rewarding. The ship is nice. There was no Fed carrier up until now. Take it or leave it, and move on.
i agree with you. so many complaining they dont seem to realise that its more likely there will not be any voting for any other ship from now on. trendy told people earlier she was working on getting a rom and kdf ship, but that wasnt good enough people started laying in to the build. simple as, if you dont like it dont buy, dont even look at it. all that work they put into the ship and people are just ripping into it. they forget there are some of us who actually like and want the ship and all this is gonna achieve is ruining any future event where we can vote on a new design. dont forget theyve given away loads this past month and youve got the winter event coming. just be grateful
dont like it dont buy it, but im sure most of you will anyway
Judging by the fact that the Temporal Dreadnought (so far only seen in the DS9 mirror space battle reputation event) was pictured on Tribble flying in the Dyson Sphere... I'm guessing it'll come up in a future lockbox... and seeing as that *is* a dreadnought, it wouldn't surprise me if it had a lot of the things people seemed to have hoped for this time around and also came with a wing or two of Aeons (hopefully people won't seriously ask for it to have Mobius destroyers in its bays).
Comments
So true.
The blogs have specifically stated that they were building a pure carrier from the start.
To me, the old Jupiter was nothing more than an empty frame. A placeholder. It was recycled, and it was given a place in Starfleet. A function. I don't care if that entails a change in role, I appreciate their efforts, and I am getting this ship.
Just because a ship class resembles an earlier design, it doesn't automagically mean that the new class will inherit the role of the old.
And I'm rooting for Trendy that she can organize a similar event/promo/campaign for the KDF and Romulan sides too
-
"To boldly go to the stars on the wings of the faithful."
Wow. I have to wonder why this is upsetting you so much. Perhaps it is you who needs to get a life.
This is a totally wrong statement.. Starfleet is a Exploration and military arm of the Federation.. it has a dual role.
A carrier is a combat vessel.. its built to project power over distance... so no a sci based Carrier has never ever made sense.
The fact is the people saying no to 3 different version.. are the hypocrites.. as no one said 3 different skins or consoles.. you know much like the Odyssey 3 pack... they are only being self centered.. as people wanting more options to go with the equipment they already have, they are at least looking out for everyone be it tac, eng or sci...
The fact is this it to close to the Atrox and those style of ships do not fit well into the current meta of STO.. its been a long time since we got a dedicated carrier.. many were hoping it would be updated to fit the current meta.. not a dinosaur of the past STO end game meta.
I'm for one was kind a of surprised this ship layout was so lacking... 3/3 and the same 2 hangers on the biggest Starfleet ship in the game.. just.. odd. I was expecting at least a 3rd hanger or maybe a dedicated frigate wing + two hangers on the ship or it being a 4/3 lay out... meh something spice up such a aging design concept for new vision for T-6 carrier.. starting off with this Federation Carrier and followed up with a KDF and Romulan version... hell even a carrier command tree where you can summon in short term fighters and having buffs to fighters would of been a nice addition to come out with this.. right now though its very lacking.
You know, I don't appreciate being called an idiot, especially by someone who doesn't know me, and who I haven't done anything to offend you (If my post really did offend you, I'm sorry, but even still JUST SKIP IT NEXT TIME!!!).
And besides, am I the only one who read the Dev Blog? Cause it states, and I quote: "Very early on, we were pretty sure this ship could potentially replace the Jupiter class Dreadnought."
And this right here is a quote from Cryptic themselves, so excuse me getting excited of the potential of this ship.
Granted, it only says potentially, but even still, is it too much to assume that this ship could be both a Carrier and a Dreadnought (Narcine, for example)?
P.S. On a side note to Cryptic: Saw the Jupiter model in the Foundry. Got to say I really love it. It's the perfect Carrier with its size and those hangers. I might buy it, despite my reservations primarily about the Boff layout, simply because its possibly the best designed carrier in-game thus far.
P.P.S. After reading through most of the forum, I guess I should make it clear that I'm not a Tac player, and I don't want this carrier to be any more tactical. I'm an engineer. I just want it to be called a Dreadnought Carrier for the sake of the original Jupiter-class.
I would also like it if the Lt. Sci was another universal instead.
Oh look, now I can have both hull and shield healing AND intel slots (really should be command, though).
Boldly going where no one has gone before!
Being a science captain is painful. No matter what faction you are.
"sighs" this again?
The NPC version of the Jupiter is classified as a Dreadnought...since there is no player version it has no player classification.
The NPC version of the Vo'Quv is also classified as a Dreadnought...but there is a player version of the Vo'Quv and what is it? I'm glad you asked! The player Vo'Quv is a Sci heavy carrier...just like this new Jupiter!
So there you go...you got a replacement to the Jupiter Dreadnought!
The premier Carrier, the Vo'Quv, had Science Commander. The second Carrier in the game, the Kar'Fi has a science Commander, too.
Why is that? Well, that's the design guideline Cryptic used, of course, but what story reason might there be?
A big factor could be that the Carriers are not meant to be in the brunt of the battle - and so tactical abiltiies would be of less relevance. But they will be equipped with good sensors and probably also good electronic counter measures, which all fit into the Science (but also Intel) role. A real world Carrier generally tries not be all that close to enemy ships. It has for its size little armnament and without a fleet and fighter screen, its weaponry is insufficient to fight off against bigger foes, and focused on point defense.
In Star Trek Online, the science abilities basically represents a form of point defense and ECM system. You have abilities like Charged Particle Burst or Photonic Shockwave for close range point defense, you got Scramble Sensors or Jam Sensors to make enemy attacks ineffcient, you even got Mask Energy Signature to make your ship harder to locate, and ability like Gravity Well, Tyken's Rift, Tractor Beam Repulsors, Gravit Wel or Energy Siphon to limit your enemies mobility and offensive potential. And finally, if enemies get through, you can use Hazard Emitters and Transfer Shield Strength to deal with incoming damage. And you have Science Team to keep enemies from messing with your own sensors.
Even the innate Beam Target Subsystem fits that provile here, as it will weaken attackers.
But i know the cry for more tactical abilities will never stop, unless cryptic finds a way to make non-DPS roles relevant, or give engineering and science more DPS capabilities. (Maybe Kemocite should have been a science skill
The Tact/DPS crowd already turned the Exploration Cruiser into a War Cruiser, by convincing Cryptic to put in a Lt.Cmdr Tactical BO instead a far more role-appropriate Lt.Cmdr Science BO.
/sigh.. when those came out sci powers were many times more powerful then they are now {then again you may have not been around back then).. before the nerf bat of doom hit sci powers.. you could at that time turn a whole battle with them... as I stated.. and I guess you ignored.. that current meta the 3/3 2 hanger sci carriers just do not cut it anymore.. its a relic setup that does not do well with todays STO... so ya I and many other expected a update to those type of dinosaur ships of the past.
Does not cut it for who? You can do everything up to advanced content without a thought and for elite you either pour out enough DPS for it to be pointless or know the proper value of science ships.
This is a bogus argument... that's like saying.. there is a Defiant escort NPC.. but when the player version came out it was a carrier... but because there was no player defiant that the player defiant can be classed as anything...
don't bring up the NPC uses sci ability's.. as all player ships in STO can use sci powers.. sci powers, consoles, bridge officers are able to be used on any ship.
Simple math.. easier to adjust a ship then to rework all the powers... Sci powers are forward arc built around more nimble sci ships... not 6 turn rate behemoths.. Carriers are not science ships.. they are hybrids.. and with current meta they don't work well at all..
In game design there is this thing called a power curve. It indicates the average power of a given item or skill at that level of the metagame. Put something below that curve and it will never see play, because you'd be "doing it wrong". We've had this with the old Star Cruiser and Exploration Cruiser. Put something above the curve however, and nothing else will see play again, because you'd be a fool to play anything else and the power curve needs to be adjusted upwards in what we call "power creep". The Scimitar is a prime example for a ship far too high above the power curve.
Power creep led to every playable T6 cruiser having the ability to slot a LtC. Tac. But at that we're more or less at an equilibrium, which makes them balanced among each other. 4/4 weapons, LtC. Tac. Now if you introduced a ship that's 4/3 or 4/4 with a LtC. Tac., with the additional ability to field two wings of pets, guess what would happen? You'd have to be a bloody fool to fly anything else, until they introduced either the 5/5 cruiser or the 4/3 escort with two hangars.
Some of us don't want power creep. We're perfectly fine with being on the curve, which is where the Jupiter resides.
Oh what self righteous nonsense... the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carrier and Kar'Fi Battle Carrier and the Xindi-Aquatic Narcine Dreadnought Carrier would like to say hi.. all 4/3 lt cmd tac with 2 hanger ships....
We could have saved a lot of tempers fraying, fractious arguments and free time wasted if the design process had of had more tiers.
Phase 1: Choose the skin (check).
Phase 2: Choose the hull, shield, turn rate, defence, weapons, console and hangar set up.
Phase 3: Choose the Boff layout.
In theory for phase 2 you could have 8 models for each where an increase in slots for one thing impacts radically on what you have available for the other. Players choosing the trade-off.
Phase 3 would be where you experiment with different primary layouts and give alternative options for the specialization.
The advantage of this is that the devs can retain a degree of control over what options are offered and after the event, the only people that those unsatisfied with the outcome can moan at... is the player base itself... and it would be self defeating because they would have de facto already lost the argument by way of democratic voting.
How much does the Jem'Hadar Dreadnought and Xindi-Aquatic Dreadnought sell for on the exchange? Also the Kar'Fi has a lower hull over other carriers. I'm sure if the Jupiter has the same done to it people would scream "It's so big, why does it have crappy hull points!"
Precisely, thank you.
I'm not saying that the lockbox ships are fine. They're not. They're also massive departures from the power curve, but their scarcity counteracts this to -some- degree. Putting a ship like that on the Zen-Store makes it the new baseline.
Oh give me a break.. man you people are stretching... hull hit points... ya because that's such a huge thing people bring up... come up with something better for your pathetic argument... /yawn
Actually, we don't have to. This is for your benefit. We're giving you guys the courtesy of an explanation, so you may realize that your suggestions are rejected by the devs, because they are not good for the health of the game. It doesn't matter if you believe us or not. The devs got it right anyway. As for you: You can either see the merit of our points or keep stomping your feet. Whatever makes your day better.
(too bad the devs probably wouldn't touch this thread with a 10-foot hyperspanner by now...)
No. It doesn't matter how many tiers( not a good idea anyway) there would have been, the whiners would have been out for blood anyway. There would have been no advantage whatsoever. The whining is mainly originated in people being delusional, negligent, and prone to wishful thinking, without caring to take the effort to read, or digest information. I have the bad feeling this was a one-time effort from Trendy, because this thread is not very rewarding. The ship is nice. There was no Fed carrier up until now. Take it or leave it, and move on.
Granted, the Phaser and Disruptor consoles may be used on other classes of ships, but the Photon console can only be used on Akira-styled Escort Carriers. I'd wish they could also be used in this new carrier as well.
Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Sure, easy math, but not good for the game.
See, if it's always just about the power of a ship, Cryptic can easily make new ships. Just add a mechanical bonus and sell the same ship again. The boards sometimes make it look as t his would work just great with the current players and Cryptic could get really rich for no effort whatsoever. Except it wouldn't really work, because people would eventually feel that they are duped. And then Cryptic would have to fix the mess they created and hope to regain the trust of the players fast enough so they start buying again. That's why Cryptic's sell-power-creep method has to be more subtle.
And not all Science powers are firing arc based. Many aren't. They just happen to be not the one that are currently as useful. Gravity Well, Tachyon Beam and Destabilizing Resonant Beam have an arc, but Scramble Sensors, Photonic Shockwave, Tractor Beam Repulsors or Charged Particle Burst do not. it would be comparitively easy to make Photonic Shockwave or Charged Particle Burst more powerful. PSW could ignore shields like every other science damage power, and CPB could simply drain more shields, or cause a shield hardness debuff.
Yeah, even with the design contest, there were tons of people saying stuff like "leave it up to the majority to choose the ugliest design"... Even if there *was* a three ship bundle in an attempt to please the tac and eng crowds as well, people would probably still complain that "everyone just flies the tac version because it gets you the best dps and you are forced to pay for the useless sci and eng variants to get the console set and alternate skins..."
...still, it *would* have been nice to vote on more than just the outer polygon shell...
Quite a blunt and brusque way of dismissing the idea.
If you are going to be dismissive of an idea, the onus is on you to at least offer reasons as to why you think it is not a good idea... unless you just wish to be rude of course.
Quite possibly but there's no reason to be all "blood cries out for blood" about it, as some people seem to have been. The whole reason I thought about the alternative process was to find ways of taking heat off the developers and actually give players a greater sense of ownership and investment in a ship, while simultaneously shutting down those with overinflkated complaints by pointing out "you voted, you lost to everyone else... that's how democracy works".
It's all right, not the greatest IMHO but nothing worth losing sleep/temper/tears/blood over. I'm not going to get upset about it. You seem to be forgetting the Atrox unless you mean a Starfleet Federation carrier.
I have one Fed toon who currently uses the carrier (Atrox). I may get the new ship for him (solely as a shortcut to T6 and because I don't like the over shiny look of the Atrox).
I'm genuinely fed up of people being argumentative on both sides.
i agree with you. so many complaining they dont seem to realise that its more likely there will not be any voting for any other ship from now on. trendy told people earlier she was working on getting a rom and kdf ship, but that wasnt good enough people started laying in to the build. simple as, if you dont like it dont buy, dont even look at it. all that work they put into the ship and people are just ripping into it. they forget there are some of us who actually like and want the ship and all this is gonna achieve is ruining any future event where we can vote on a new design. dont forget theyve given away loads this past month and youve got the winter event coming. just be grateful
dont like it dont buy it, but im sure most of you will anyway