test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
If you could change the upcoming Jupiter in one of the following ways...
yakodym
Member Posts: 363 Arc User
...which one would you choose?
Star Trek Online in a nutshell: piecomic.tumblr.com/post/91978130240 & piecomic.tumblr.com/post/85652046785
If you could change the upcoming Jupiter in one of the following ways... 94 votes
I would keep it as it is
21%
20 votes
I would remove the smaller nacelles
7%
7 votes
I would make it more tac focused
10%
10 votes
I would make it more eng focused
3%
3 votes
I would give it command spec instead of intel
6%
6 votes
I would give it pilot spec instead of intel
1%
1 vote
I would change the design from Omega to [insert greek letter here]
4%
4 votes
I would give it 4/3 weapon layout
13%
13 votes
I would give it a secondary deflector and sensor analysis
9%
9 votes
I'll tell you in the comments
22%
21 votes
0
Comments
Sure, 4:3 weapons would be nice. So would an extra tac console.
What I'd most like to see are copies of it for Romulans and KDF in a 3-carrier bundle.
http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/sto.gamepedia.com/9/9a/Federation_Fleet_Escort_(Hermes).png?version=16bbd4c24838162b885a92e1a1fb41df
When I first saw the new Jupiter, my first thought was that it looked like the big brother to the Hermes.
FROM: 1 Lieutenant Tactical, 1 Lieutenant Commander Engineering/Intel, 1 Lieutenant Science, 1 Commander Science, 1 Lieutenant Universal
TO: 1 Commander Science, 1 Lieutenant Commander Universal/Intel, 1 Lieutenant Tactical, 1 Lieutenant Engineer, 1 Lieutenant Science.
This would keep the science lean in the ship while making it flexible as the LtC Univ/Intel spot can be used for any number of roles. This isn't an Intel ship, so the Intel spot can't be the commander position. The Jupiter is a ship that gathers information, it's hangar pets are a recon and combat element (even if we only launch combat pets) so Intel makes more sense to me than Command. Now Pilot would be hilarious but inappropriate.
Anyways I've always seen the three 'specialties' as Intel 'supports' Science, Command 'supports' Engineering, and Pilot 'supports' Tactical, with this being a science carrier, Intel makes the most sense.
I'd also trade the integrated subsystem targeting for sensor analysis, and if possible a secondary deflector, but that is something I think should be done for all carriers and not just the Jupiter. (I love science ships for the crowd control chaos they can cause, but I've always felt the subsystem targeting was near useless on them as to buff those skills you need 'tactical training' and not science training, which always seemed really strange to me.
I'd also consider changing the frigate pets as a 45 degree arc weapon on a pet is useless with current pet AI, although lock trajectory may help with that, as might updates in the hangar pet AI so I'll hold off judgement on the frigate pets until I see them in action.
Otherwise, I would keep it largely as-is. Though I would happily trade subsystem targeting for either sensor analysis or attract fire.
Also, I would make it bigger. I'm not sure how big it is now, but I'm sure it could stand to be bigger.
Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A 4/3 weapon layout is standard for escorts.
A 3/3 weapon layout is standard for a carrier and carriers don't have sensor analysis or secondary deflectors.
This is a carrier, not a science vessel or an escort.
The only thing I would change would be to make all 4 nacelles the same size and have them angled the same way as the old Jupiter. Perhaps add it as an alternate pylon option.
My character Tsin'xing
The Annorax has 4/3 weaponry, sensor analysis, a secondary deflector, and a hanger bay. The Dysons have 4/3 as well, even if the 4th one is a locked slot. Anyway, point is that it's silly to imply that "all ships of type X must conform to a certain layout."
The Annorax is more comparable to the Dreadnaught Cruisers in function than a full carrier. I mean... its got a lance and you said it has a hanger. The Dread Cruisers also have a lance and a hanger.
Secondary deflector, if you are going for a science carrier then something about it needs to be science focused.
Matching set of nacelles, might make it look less awful.
Scrap it altogether, asides from the 'controversies' of its poor looks, meh stats and the jab at non-fed players it hasn't contributed anything to the mix.
As was said the annorax is actually even listed as a science dreadnought, which is not a carrier in the least, while also you are talking about a promo item which like lobi/lock-box ships will break some rules that c-store ships will not. Now for the dyson science destroyers which are hybrid mode-changing ships so not a true science or escort/destroyer class ship, but one that can change between these two types making it again a ship that is allowed to break some rules with restrictions. Like that it's secondary deflector/sensor analysis/system targeting are disabled when you are in the science mode effectively making the ship a science ship in function an style, while you lose the weapon system power bonus/Inertia/turn rate/impulse speed buffs from the tactical mode. There is also that your boff layout changes based on which mode you are in effectively changing how the ship functions as well, but then you gain a cannon in a locked weapon slot making the ship even have a escort style weapon layout that is locked to the tactical mode. All of this points out that this is an outlying ship to the standard rules of the ship system like many prototype ships, but a outlying ship design does not define the rule compared to the many examples that actually re-enforce the rule as being true.
Well it interests you enough to read a thread about it and to comment on it. So...
My main point was that some ships break established "rules," meaning that "rules are meant to be broken anyway."
As for the annorax, note that despite being comparable to dreadnought cruisers, it also has both sensor analysis and a secondary deflector--two things "rules" state should only be on science ships. Subsystem targeting too, and all that replaces the typical cruiser commands found on dreadnought cruisers.
Break rules. Make more interesting ships. Make people want them more.
The Annorax isn't a Dreadnought Cruiser though...it is a Science Dreadnought.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Krenim_Annorax_Science_Dreadnought
That might be true but they are not common place, they are outlying ships either use a outside method such as the mode-change of the dyson, or the fact that the ship is a promo ship that allows it to break those rules. Not all ships are held to the standard as you have rules for lobi/lock-box ships that are less restrictive then the rules used for the normal event/c-store ships. An no just because some ships break the rules does not mean all ships should break the rules, as than you would lose the flavor an draw f those few random ships that do play outside the established rules (like lobi/lock-box or unique one off ships like the dyson mode-changing ships.).
Should learn to read better as that part was even right in my response that these two ships are examples of ships that are allowed to break the rules as they are not common, or easy to get ships meaning they need to be more impressive an so can bend/break the rules other ships can not. Also you are thinking the rules are universal between c-store/event ships an lobi/lock-box/promo ships, which is not true they are two sets of ships with different rule-sets that are either in the case of the c-store/event ships more stringent, or less stringent in the case of lobi/lock-box ships, to make these two different methods of gaining ships visibly varied an different. In this way no rules are broken as they both are playing by the rules as the Annorax is playing by the promo/lobi/lock-box rules, where as the dyson is using a gimic that makes it function as both ships via the mode changing not being a science an escort ship at the same exact time.
I already have and use the Breen carrier, but wanted a carrier that has more teeth.
Type:
Dreadnought Cruiser
Unless you're a cryptic employee who works on this game's design specifically, when you talk about the "rules" that ship types supposedly follow, what you're really talking about are the various patterns observed by yourself and others. If there are exceptions (which there are) then it's not a rule, but really just a guideline.
Sigh...this again?
Okay, on a more serious, no one change is going to do it; I believe there is more than one change that needs to be made so i made a list
[1] At least a 3/4 weapons load out, preferably a 4/4 load out. [2] Upgrade either the Lt Tac or Lt Sci Boff stations into a Lt Cmdr station. [3] Perhaps convert the Intel seat into a Command seat instead. [4] Increase the turn rate to a seven. [5] for customizing purposes, make available some of the cgi models of the rejected design candidate vessels such as the Alpha or Epsilon for example.
If suggestion 1 and 2 can't happen, shrink the vessel to halve of the currently listed size. Also, the Devs should make some clarifications (and maybe some apologies for the confusion) on their next news article.
Actually any good rule has exception for many different situations, with many times rule an guideline can be used interchangeably. Also unless you are a employee of cryptic than i would not say that since they have broken/bent the rules once they should again, as you do not know why they broke/bent that rule/guideline for that specific ship/s. An patterns are a good way of knowing what the devs are able to do, or not do an form a picture of what each group of ships (lobi/lock-box/promo ships and c-store/event ships) are able to have done with them.
Though i do hope we see them kick out a true science ship like the advanced research, or deep space science ships soon, along side some cross faction science ships in a package deal.