Not sure this is a carrier only thing though, but more any ship that uses hangers and/or pet based items. So you have carrier, escort carriers, hanger-using cruisers an science ships (like the vesta), separation-pet using ships, Also this could affect turrets you lay as well. That is actually a good chunk of ships an many of them have been part of recent releases. Most of the tier six cruisers have a hanger-bay that a carrier/flight-deck specialization would affect as it is not about buffing that specific ship but ships that use hanger.separation/turret based pets. Even if you look at the line-up of ships that have hangers/separation pets they use, or have access to, than you are looking at 12 ships out of 24/25 ships. Which is about an even split between ships that would be, an would not be affected by such a specialization,l and don't agree that a specialization should affect all ships as even by that logic you have space an group exclusive specializations that largely do not affect each other.
Also I think making specializations that are usable on all ships is not a good idea, as than you run the risk of them being abit too generic as time goes on. Making some specializations that focus onto different areas of the game, certain types of play, and ship types gives variety an interesting changes to playstyles you can create. There should be yes some specializations that are useful for a more broad, and yet still focused types of weapons or playstyles like torpedos an fighting from the flank of enemies.
Myself I would love to see them flesh out carrier and hanger-type systems, that focus a bit more on this part of your ships that have them. Like that hanger/separation pet using ships have a slot for each hanger or separation pet you can assign 1-3 piloting doff, which would basically be a dual doff that has both a normal doff ability it gives when slotted as well as ones for when slotted in a hanger-pilot slot, which would give your deployed pet/ss increased stats/AI/abilities from having it slotted to that hanger/separation pet.
Not sure this is a carrier only thing though, but more any ship that uses hangers and/or pet based items. So you have carrier, escort carriers, hanger-using cruisers an science ships (like the vesta), separation-pet using ships, Also this could affect turrets you lay as well. That is actually a good chunk of ships an many of them have been part of recent releases. Most of the tier six cruisers have a hanger-bay that a carrier/flight-deck specialization would affect as it is not about buffing that specific ship but ships that use hanger.separation/turret based pets. Even if you look at the line-up of ships that have hangers/separation pets they use, or have access to, than you are looking at 12 ships out of 24/25 ships. Which is about an even split between ships that would be, an would not be affected by such a specialization,l and don't agree that a specialization should affect all ships as even by that logic you have space an group exclusive specializations that largely do not affect each other.
Also I think making specializations that are usable on all ships is not a good idea, as than you run the risk of them being abit too generic as time goes on. Making some specializations that focus onto different areas of the game, certain types of play, and ship types gives variety an interesting changes to playstyles you can create. There should be yes some specializations that are useful for a more broad, and yet still focused types of weapons or playstyles like torpedos an fighting from the flank of enemies.
Myself I would love to see them flesh out carrier and hanger-type systems, that focus a bit more on this part of your ships that have them. Like that hanger/separation pet using ships have a slot for each hanger or separation pet you can assign 1-3 piloting doff, which would basically be a dual doff that has both a normal doff ability it gives when slotted as well as ones for when slotted in a hanger-pilot slot, which would give your deployed pet/ss increased stats/AI/abilities from having it slotted to that hanger/separation pet.
Specializations already affect all ships. Every time you choose a Specialization youve invested in. Youre gaining the bonuses of that Specialization. Your character gets captain abilities from said Specializations as well. I dont know what ships youve been flying but 'most' T6 ships do not have Hanger Bays. Theyre a very niche group and not all of them are very viable for the hanger pets to begin with.
A Flight Deck Officer Specialization would be a better way of approaching pets than the new Skill Line where its hamfisted into the Tactical Tree. Most of the Carriers in the game arent even Faction Specific and at least on the Fed side theres only two true Carriers with one of them NOT being a T6 ship. Not to mention the Carrier Skills are at the near top of the Tactical Skill Tree which means someone is going to be investing points into a set of skills that will not transfer over to other Science Ships if they choose to change things up. If this person is a Science Captain that jumps between their beloved Intrepid and the Jupiter. Those skills for pets will have no benefit for them in the Intrepid. At least with the Specialization they could dump it for another one that would benefit them. Where as with the Skill Tree there is potential for them to have to respec every time they want to a change of pace.
Small subset of players? It was a big enough subset that they made not only a C-Store ship for it, but a "Design the Ship" event for it.
Seems that not only is the playerbase there, but it might encourage ship sales if they developed this Specialization and maybe even retroactively slapped a Flight Deck seat onto the Jupiter, if not just flat out released a FD Carrier.
And how many Carriers have they released overall? Count the number of Tier 6 Cruisers and compare it vs the number of Tier 6 Carriers!
But any way - a ship is not a specialization. Specializations - despite the name - do work for all ships and classes.
I refer to you my previous reply in this thread. Hangar-bay capable ships have skyrocketed since Delta Rising, and a number of those new Cruisers and Escorts, even Science Vessels, are 1-Hangar bay ships. 2-Hangar Carriers aren't common, but the entire family of Hangar capable ships have drastically gone up since DR alone.
It's still nowhere as prevalent as other aspects about ships. Look at the buffs the different specializations grant - the most restrictive ones might be those that give you bonus to torpedoes - but torpedoes is a mere build choice, you don't need a special ship to run a torpedo.
But a "Flight Deck" only spec isn't really neccessary. Maybe there should be just more thought in general (and specializations specifically) in how certain buffs affect pets, too.
For example, why doesn't Intel Flanking also apply to your pets? Heck, maybe some pets could also benefit from the Command Starship Mastery Trait (of course, that trait is terrible and probably needs a major revamp.)
It's not as prevalent as Standard Pew-Pew Builds and Gameplay, correct, but look outside that, Hangar Deck gameplay permeates this game and has only gone higher since Delta Rising.
Hangar-bay capable ships, whether they are double or single bays, encompass this game a lot more than in the past, and actually overlap many of those "Standard Play" style of ships, i.e. Galaxy-X, Ateleh, Akira, etc.
A "Flight Deck Specialization" would sensibly supplement such ships if the player WANTS more out of his Hangar Units. He could, for example, go Primary Intel + Secondary "Flight Deck Spec," or a 2-hangar player can flip that around because he has 2 bays instead of 1, and with many 2-hangar carriers, likely only having 6 weapons instead of 7.
Intel & Command already cater to general combat. Pilot is... Well, Pilot. Nothing exists for the main benefit of Science, but Intel offers some benefit (OSS), but there are none for Hangar-bay oriented builds and ships.
I havent seen anyone suggest they be moved to Science. I have stated numerous times that they should be moved to their own tree as they dont fit Science or Tactical. Only that the fact that the true Carriers in the game are Science is evidence they dont belong in Tactical.
Yeah, nothing tactical about heavily armed ships attacking enemies...
Are we talking about RL or a video game? Because in THIS video game. CARRIERs are Science ships. Now sit down and learn something before spouting off nonsense.
Not sure this is a carrier only thing though, but more any ship that uses hangers and/or pet based items. So you have carrier, escort carriers, hanger-using cruisers an science ships (like the vesta), separation-pet using ships, Also this could affect turrets you lay as well. That is actually a good chunk of ships an many of them have been part of recent releases. Most of the tier six cruisers have a hanger-bay that a carrier/flight-deck specialization would affect as it is not about buffing that specific ship but ships that use hanger.separation/turret based pets. Even if you look at the line-up of ships that have hangers/separation pets they use, or have access to, than you are looking at 12 ships out of 24/25 ships. Which is about an even split between ships that would be, an would not be affected by such a specialization,l and don't agree that a specialization should affect all ships as even by that logic you have space an group exclusive specializations that largely do not affect each other.
Also I think making specializations that are usable on all ships is not a good idea, as than you run the risk of them being abit too generic as time goes on. Making some specializations that focus onto different areas of the game, certain types of play, and ship types gives variety an interesting changes to playstyles you can create. There should be yes some specializations that are useful for a more broad, and yet still focused types of weapons or playstyles like torpedos an fighting from the flank of enemies.
Myself I would love to see them flesh out carrier and hanger-type systems, that focus a bit more on this part of your ships that have them. Like that hanger/separation pet using ships have a slot for each hanger or separation pet you can assign 1-3 piloting doff, which would basically be a dual doff that has both a normal doff ability it gives when slotted as well as ones for when slotted in a hanger-pilot slot, which would give your deployed pet/ss increased stats/AI/abilities from having it slotted to that hanger/separation pet.
Specializations already affect all ships. Every time you choose a Specialization youve invested in. Youre gaining the bonuses of that Specialization. Your character gets captain abilities from said Specializations as well. I dont know what ships youve been flying but 'most' T6 ships do not have Hanger Bays. Theyre a very niche group and not all of them are very viable for the hanger pets to begin with.
A Flight Deck Officer Specialization would be a better way of approaching pets than the new Skill Line where its hamfisted into the Tactical Tree. Most of the Carriers in the game arent even Faction Specific and at least on the Fed side theres only two true Carriers with one of them NOT being a T6 ship. Not to mention the Carrier Skills are at the near top of the Tactical Skill Tree which means someone is going to be investing points into a set of skills that will not transfer over to other Science Ships if they choose to change things up. If this person is a Science Captain that jumps between their beloved Intrepid and the Jupiter. Those skills for pets will have no benefit for them in the Intrepid. At least with the Specialization they could dump it for another one that would benefit them. Where as with the Skill Tree there is potential for them to have to respec every time they want to a change of pace.
Actually just about half of all the recent ships have hanger bays, which is a really good chuck of the ship rooster actually. I mean out of 80 ships 35 of them have at least one hanger bay (or the ability to separate such as the gal-x, and advanced escort), and that might not be most of them, but that is to me enough to warrant a spec or tree that focuses on improving that form of play. Oh yeah I am not saying that all specializations should not affect all ships, but that there should be some that focus on niches to improve that form of play to give variety in how you play. Issue is not the ship if the hanger-pets are viable, but the fact that pets have been quite gimped an have issues themselves that hold them back.
I honestly think a career would be better that kind of would be a mixture of the command spec idea of using tactics, and also having hanger/separation pet buffing abilities. Which could introduce things that would improve hanger-pets overall to be better viable than they currently are, as well as giving avenues for the player to actually use a improved UI to better control their pets over relying on the wonky AI they have. Even if you do not create a full on carrier oriented on such a playstyle you could still work around the idea of a specialization that could buff things like their Ai an stats, while also using the Doff system we have placing in a slot for a hanger-pilot doff that by being slotted in this slot improves your deployed hanger-pets in a variety of ways (you could have it that you have one slot for each hanger-bay or separation pet the ship has).
I'll agree that I find the idea of limiting hanger-pet buffing talents to just tactical is a terrible idea most of all so high in the tree, and that they should be spread out into each tree giving buffs based on what that tree is good at. Such as that in science your pets might get buffs to shields/control-abilities/shield-heals, while engineering might get hull bonuses/resists/power-system boosts/hull-healing boosts, and tactical could give boosts to weapon damage/defense/mobility. You could even add in a talent in each tree that gives you a portion (say 10%) of the bonuses gained from consoles slotted into that tree's career type (science, engineering, tactical).
Why should a player not need to re-specc to play a different style of play? If they want to focus on a hanger/carrier style of play than they will take different things, but even a player wanting to fly the same ship with a hanger can still fly it without issue by forgoing those career/talent tree choices. To me it is like using a science oriented build in a science ship, but than wanting to move over to a tactical or engineering styled ship, as you can still use that science build just won't be as good many times or you can respec to improve the performance of the new ship. This is true of a hanger/carrier tree/career/specialization build just because it is less effective does not mean it will not function on that new ship, but if you want to use that ship at a better performance than you should have to re-spec for that improved performance. An I will say that 35 out of 80 for tier six ships that use either a hanger or separation pets is good enough to me to warrant a specialization focused on them, or a career tree that could do the same improving aspects of them (like having career path bonuses that boost the Ai or Unlock an improved UI.).
I finally got some better info on how the Skill system works.
All the fuss is over 2 unlocks, Pets Health (which boosts pet health by 10%) and Pets Damage (by 10%).
These got put at the end where you pick one or the other. Not worth messing up your build for.
All the unlocks are not worth sacrificing the build you want when they're all minor bonuses.
Meanwhile the Carrier meat and patatoes are in the Coordination Protocols skill (+20% hull points for hangar pets, +20% shield hull points for Pets), Defensive Coordination (+20% defence for pets, +20% DR for pets) and Offensive Coordination (20% Accuracy for pets, 20% Damage for pets). And other then these three you need never take another Tactical Skill as a Carrier Captain if you don't want too. If you get to the Hangar unlocks that is gravy, but too minor to worry about.
I still think a Flight Deck Specialization, even if only a secondary specialization, would be cool still, but now that I understand the system better, I'm not worried about the minor pet unlocks.
Let me get this straight: This thread is about putting Hangar-enhancing stats into a Specialization rather than keeping it in the revamped Skill Tree. Your argument against putting it in a Specialization, which would be optional, vs the Skill Tree, which is less optional, is that pets are used by a small portion of the playerbase. Really? If it's a Specialization, you can avoid it. If it's in the Skill Tree, you're stuck with it. Tell me again how this is a bad idea. I'll try not to laugh too hard.
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." - Spock
Not sure this is a carrier only thing though, but more any ship that uses hangers and/or pet based items. So you have carrier, escort carriers, hanger-using cruisers an science ships (like the vesta), separation-pet using ships, Also this could affect turrets you lay as well. That is actually a good chunk of ships an many of them have been part of recent releases. Most of the tier six cruisers have a hanger-bay that a carrier/flight-deck specialization would affect as it is not about buffing that specific ship but ships that use hanger.separation/turret based pets. Even if you look at the line-up of ships that have hangers/separation pets they use, or have access to, than you are looking at 12 ships out of 24/25 ships. Which is about an even split between ships that would be, an would not be affected by such a specialization,l and don't agree that a specialization should affect all ships as even by that logic you have space an group exclusive specializations that largely do not affect each other.
Also I think making specializations that are usable on all ships is not a good idea, as than you run the risk of them being abit too generic as time goes on. Making some specializations that focus onto different areas of the game, certain types of play, and ship types gives variety an interesting changes to playstyles you can create. There should be yes some specializations that are useful for a more broad, and yet still focused types of weapons or playstyles like torpedos an fighting from the flank of enemies.
Myself I would love to see them flesh out carrier and hanger-type systems, that focus a bit more on this part of your ships that have them. Like that hanger/separation pet using ships have a slot for each hanger or separation pet you can assign 1-3 piloting doff, which would basically be a dual doff that has both a normal doff ability it gives when slotted as well as ones for when slotted in a hanger-pilot slot, which would give your deployed pet/ss increased stats/AI/abilities from having it slotted to that hanger/separation pet.
Specializations already affect all ships. Every time you choose a Specialization youve invested in. Youre gaining the bonuses of that Specialization. Your character gets captain abilities from said Specializations as well. I dont know what ships youve been flying but 'most' T6 ships do not have Hanger Bays. Theyre a very niche group and not all of them are very viable for the hanger pets to begin with.
A Flight Deck Officer Specialization would be a better way of approaching pets than the new Skill Line where its hamfisted into the Tactical Tree. Most of the Carriers in the game arent even Faction Specific and at least on the Fed side theres only two true Carriers with one of them NOT being a T6 ship. Not to mention the Carrier Skills are at the near top of the Tactical Skill Tree which means someone is going to be investing points into a set of skills that will not transfer over to other Science Ships if they choose to change things up. If this person is a Science Captain that jumps between their beloved Intrepid and the Jupiter. Those skills for pets will have no benefit for them in the Intrepid. At least with the Specialization they could dump it for another one that would benefit them. Where as with the Skill Tree there is potential for them to have to respec every time they want to a change of pace.
Actually just about half of all the recent ships have hanger bays, which is a really good chuck of the ship rooster actually. I mean out of 80 ships 35 of them have at least one hanger bay (or the ability to separate such as the gal-x, and advanced escort), and that might not be most of them, but that is to me enough to warrant a spec or tree that focuses on improving that form of play. Oh yeah I am not saying that all specializations should not affect all ships, but that there should be some that focus on niches to improve that form of play to give variety in how you play. Issue is not the ship if the hanger-pets are viable, but the fact that pets have been quite gimped an have issues themselves that hold them back.
I honestly think a career would be better that kind of would be a mixture of the command spec idea of using tactics, and also having hanger/separation pet buffing abilities. Which could introduce things that would improve hanger-pets overall to be better viable than they currently are, as well as giving avenues for the player to actually use a improved UI to better control their pets over relying on the wonky AI they have. Even if you do not create a full on carrier oriented on such a playstyle you could still work around the idea of a specialization that could buff things like their Ai an stats, while also using the Doff system we have placing in a slot for a hanger-pilot doff that by being slotted in this slot improves your deployed hanger-pets in a variety of ways (you could have it that you have one slot for each hanger-bay or separation pet the ship has).
I'll agree that I find the idea of limiting hanger-pet buffing talents to just tactical is a terrible idea most of all so high in the tree, and that they should be spread out into each tree giving buffs based on what that tree is good at. Such as that in science your pets might get buffs to shields/control-abilities/shield-heals, while engineering might get hull bonuses/resists/power-system boosts/hull-healing boosts, and tactical could give boosts to weapon damage/defense/mobility. You could even add in a talent in each tree that gives you a portion (say 10%) of the bonuses gained from consoles slotted into that tree's career type (science, engineering, tactical).
Why should a player not need to re-specc to play a different style of play? If they want to focus on a hanger/carrier style of play than they will take different things, but even a player wanting to fly the same ship with a hanger can still fly it without issue by forgoing those career/talent tree choices. To me it is like using a science oriented build in a science ship, but than wanting to move over to a tactical or engineering styled ship, as you can still use that science build just won't be as good many times or you can respec to improve the performance of the new ship. This is true of a hanger/carrier tree/career/specialization build just because it is less effective does not mean it will not function on that new ship, but if you want to use that ship at a better performance than you should have to re-spec for that improved performance. An I will say that 35 out of 80 for tier six ships that use either a hanger or separation pets is good enough to me to warrant a specialization focused on them, or a career tree that could do the same improving aspects of them (like having career path bonuses that boost the Ai or Unlock an improved UI.).
1.) All you did was confirm that I was right about the comment the 'most', in regards to number of pet carrying ships, being inaccurate.
2.) I cant even tell if youre talking Specialization or a new Class in that second paragraph.
3.) Hanger Pets, regardless of the uptick in availability of ships with flight decks, is still a very niche playstyle. Id prefer it be its own Specialization than on the Skill Tree at all. It doesnt matter if its in Tactical or Engineering or Science...Or all three. It just doesnt belong. Especially since no one can utilize those pets til theyre well up there close to level cap. The Skill Tree should be focusing on the player proper. Not something the player may or may not be utilizing at any given time.
4.) Are you seriously trying to argue that a player should be forced to purchase respecs every time he wants to change from one ship to another? Because thats exactly what youre doing here. If a player wants to jump from his Arbiter Class starship into his Jupiter or Concorde. He should have to respec to do it so he can get the most out of them? While someone jumping from their Guardian to their Phantom dont have to respec? You do understand they tried this before when the game first launched. And theres very good reason why that changed.
Not sure this is a carrier only thing though, but more any ship that uses hangers and/or pet based items. So you have carrier, escort carriers, hanger-using cruisers an science ships (like the vesta), separation-pet using ships, Also this could affect turrets you lay as well. That is actually a good chunk of ships an many of them have been part of recent releases. Most of the tier six cruisers have a hanger-bay that a carrier/flight-deck specialization would affect as it is not about buffing that specific ship but ships that use hanger.separation/turret based pets. Even if you look at the line-up of ships that have hangers/separation pets they use, or have access to, than you are looking at 12 ships out of 24/25 ships. Which is about an even split between ships that would be, an would not be affected by such a specialization,l and don't agree that a specialization should affect all ships as even by that logic you have space an group exclusive specializations that largely do not affect each other.
Also I think making specializations that are usable on all ships is not a good idea, as than you run the risk of them being abit too generic as time goes on. Making some specializations that focus onto different areas of the game, certain types of play, and ship types gives variety an interesting changes to playstyles you can create. There should be yes some specializations that are useful for a more broad, and yet still focused types of weapons or playstyles like torpedos an fighting from the flank of enemies.
Myself I would love to see them flesh out carrier and hanger-type systems, that focus a bit more on this part of your ships that have them. Like that hanger/separation pet using ships have a slot for each hanger or separation pet you can assign 1-3 piloting doff, which would basically be a dual doff that has both a normal doff ability it gives when slotted as well as ones for when slotted in a hanger-pilot slot, which would give your deployed pet/ss increased stats/AI/abilities from having it slotted to that hanger/separation pet.
Specializations already affect all ships. Every time you choose a Specialization youve invested in. Youre gaining the bonuses of that Specialization. Your character gets captain abilities from said Specializations as well. I dont know what ships youve been flying but 'most' T6 ships do not have Hanger Bays. Theyre a very niche group and not all of them are very viable for the hanger pets to begin with.
A Flight Deck Officer Specialization would be a better way of approaching pets than the new Skill Line where its hamfisted into the Tactical Tree. Most of the Carriers in the game arent even Faction Specific and at least on the Fed side theres only two true Carriers with one of them NOT being a T6 ship. Not to mention the Carrier Skills are at the near top of the Tactical Skill Tree which means someone is going to be investing points into a set of skills that will not transfer over to other Science Ships if they choose to change things up. If this person is a Science Captain that jumps between their beloved Intrepid and the Jupiter. Those skills for pets will have no benefit for them in the Intrepid. At least with the Specialization they could dump it for another one that would benefit them. Where as with the Skill Tree there is potential for them to have to respec every time they want to a change of pace.
Actually just about half of all the recent ships have hanger bays, which is a really good chuck of the ship rooster actually. I mean out of 80 ships 35 of them have at least one hanger bay (or the ability to separate such as the gal-x, and advanced escort), and that might not be most of them, but that is to me enough to warrant a spec or tree that focuses on improving that form of play. Oh yeah I am not saying that all specializations should not affect all ships, but that there should be some that focus on niches to improve that form of play to give variety in how you play. Issue is not the ship if the hanger-pets are viable, but the fact that pets have been quite gimped an have issues themselves that hold them back.
I honestly think a career would be better that kind of would be a mixture of the command spec idea of using tactics, and also having hanger/separation pet buffing abilities. Which could introduce things that would improve hanger-pets overall to be better viable than they currently are, as well as giving avenues for the player to actually use a improved UI to better control their pets over relying on the wonky AI they have. Even if you do not create a full on carrier oriented on such a playstyle you could still work around the idea of a specialization that could buff things like their Ai an stats, while also using the Doff system we have placing in a slot for a hanger-pilot doff that by being slotted in this slot improves your deployed hanger-pets in a variety of ways (you could have it that you have one slot for each hanger-bay or separation pet the ship has).
I'll agree that I find the idea of limiting hanger-pet buffing talents to just tactical is a terrible idea most of all so high in the tree, and that they should be spread out into each tree giving buffs based on what that tree is good at. Such as that in science your pets might get buffs to shields/control-abilities/shield-heals, while engineering might get hull bonuses/resists/power-system boosts/hull-healing boosts, and tactical could give boosts to weapon damage/defense/mobility. You could even add in a talent in each tree that gives you a portion (say 10%) of the bonuses gained from consoles slotted into that tree's career type (science, engineering, tactical).
Why should a player not need to re-specc to play a different style of play? If they want to focus on a hanger/carrier style of play than they will take different things, but even a player wanting to fly the same ship with a hanger can still fly it without issue by forgoing those career/talent tree choices. To me it is like using a science oriented build in a science ship, but than wanting to move over to a tactical or engineering styled ship, as you can still use that science build just won't be as good many times or you can respec to improve the performance of the new ship. This is true of a hanger/carrier tree/career/specialization build just because it is less effective does not mean it will not function on that new ship, but if you want to use that ship at a better performance than you should have to re-spec for that improved performance. An I will say that 35 out of 80 for tier six ships that use either a hanger or separation pets is good enough to me to warrant a specialization focused on them, or a career tree that could do the same improving aspects of them (like having career path bonuses that boost the Ai or Unlock an improved UI.).
1.) All you did was confirm that I was right about the comment the 'most', in regards to number of pet carrying ships, being inaccurate.
2.) I cant even tell if youre talking Specialization or a new Class in that second paragraph.
3.) Hanger Pets, regardless of the uptick in availability of ships with flight decks, is still a very niche playstyle. Id prefer it be its own Specialization than on the Skill Tree at all. It doesnt matter if its in Tactical or Engineering or Science...Or all three. It just doesnt belong. Especially since no one can utilize those pets til theyre well up there close to level cap. The Skill Tree should be focusing on the player proper. Not something the player may or may not be utilizing at any given time.
4.) Are you seriously trying to argue that a player should be forced to purchase respecs every time he wants to change from one ship to another? Because thats exactly what youre doing here. If a player wants to jump from his Arbiter Class starship into his Jupiter or Concorde. He should have to respec to do it so he can get the most out of them? While someone jumping from their Guardian to their Phantom dont have to respec? You do understand they tried this before when the game first launched. And theres very good reason why that changed.
I should have made it more clear that I was saying it was carrier/hanger-using/separation-pet using ships as a type much like cruiser escorts an science ship types. In this light if you look at it most of these have between 3-12 ships out of a total of 24/25 released ships on the federation side for instance, compared to hanger/carrier/separation using ships having 12 ships out of the same releases making it that I believe only cruiser/battle-cruiser ship type at an even 12 ships released is equal to it. This was my fault and should have clarified myself.
That was kind of as both, was really tied after a 15 hour shift. One part is that if you did a carrier career like science/engineering/tactical, it would need more than just abilities that buff, as well as influence your deployed pets. Which is why i was thinking it would need aspects of the command specialization to flesh it out. As many times a carrier can be called a command carrier that will organize, and coordinate those ships around it using it's better recon abilities via both pets an non-pet methods. While also that even if you did not go the route of a full-career implementation it could translate into either a specialization that has talent choices that buff pets like how the other specialization work (intel, command, commando, pilot) just in a more specialized manner. Or you could make it a career tree that would sit alongside the science/tactical/engineering trees that come with the new revamp, but which would consolidate many of the buffs an bonuses to pets into a single tree that is optional to use. The career implementation would be the harder yet I think more rewarding one to use, as I know many players that like pet using playstyle, but that the gimped an minimal UI we have makes it a fire an forget style of play. While the second option to implement it as a career tree is an easier implementation process.
One of the reasons I am only looking at tier six releases of ships for comparison of hanger-using/carrier/separation ships is that you spend quite a short time in the pre tier five ships for it to matter much. Even when making a new character I would spend maybe a month or month an half of relatively short play times (2-3 hour play sessions) to get to level fifty. To me that is so little time to deal with a un-optimal talent choice, as well as that it is not the only choice we have to chose from, but more over you have the fact you get a free respec as well. I mean it is not like you actually have to grind eight hours a day for three months to get to cap or even fifty, as such just forgo the pet talent choices till fifty when you can start to get hanger-using ships an use the free respec to go into a more hanger0pet oriented build if you are looking at that style of play. I will agree that there should be more options in the trees that are focused on non-pet buffing talents, but not that the trees should be devoid of pet-talent options at all. There should be I believe more than enough talent options in the trees to get the ultimate ability without taking either any or very few pet buffing talents.
One reason I think that pet-talents that buff things like hull hp/resistance/power-levels, shield hp/shield-healing and such should be placed into career trees that are known for using such things (like science an healing or buff shield hp). Is that it would spread the number of talents that buff pets more evenly outside of tactical. and so making it less likely you will need to take a pet-buffing talent unless you are looking to use that playstyle. To me the trees should not focus on just one aspect of their ship types they use. but have a primary and secondary focus to them. With the primary being what types of ships they have most of, while the secondary is things that other careers or play-styles might like to get over other options. A player should know what they are going to play the most, and so if they are not going to be using a very pet focused style or ships than forgoing the pet talents is viable an can be done without issue, and even if they do fly a hanger-using ship the pets will still preform to some degree with out the pet-buffing talents. If the trees were so limited on choices that to get the ultimate ability you needed to spec fully all of the talents in that career tree, than i could see a point to focus it more, but that is not what I am seeing as it is looking like their is more then enough talents to get the ultimate abilities an have spare unused/taken talents.
I can see an issue with having to respec at 500 zen each time you want to fly a new ship, but at the same time I can get just about 1000 zen in a week of relaxed grinding of dill and converting, as such I don't think that is an issue other than maybe that respec tokens could use a bit of a drop in zen cost. Yet how much of a drop in damage would he take by not respecc'ing when going to a hanger-using ship? Not much an for a change of pace I think 500 zen is not that bad, most of all since he can still use both ships, but one small aspect of one ship is going to slightly lag behind. Also this is not about going from one ship to another, but going from one playstyle to another like going from a draining build to a full on tactical build. I can agree to disagree on this fact.
It's not as prevalent as Standard Pew-Pew Builds and Gameplay, correct, but look outside that, Hangar Deck gameplay permeates this game and has only gone higher since Delta Rising.
Hangar-bay capable ships, whether they are double or single bays, encompass this game a lot more than in the past, and actually overlap many of those "Standard Play" style of ships, i.e. Galaxy-X, Ateleh, Akira, etc.
A "Flight Deck Specialization" would sensibly supplement such ships if the player WANTS more out of his Hangar Units. He could, for example, go Primary Intel + Secondary "Flight Deck Spec," or a 2-hangar player can flip that around because he has 2 bays instead of 1, and with many 2-hangar carriers, likely only having 6 weapons instead of 7.
Intel & Command already cater to general combat. Pilot is... Well, Pilot. Nothing exists for the main benefit of Science, but Intel offers some benefit (OSS), but there are none for Hangar-bay oriented builds and ships
Exaggerating a bit here, but: Picking a hangar deck specialization for a flight deck cruiser or similar 1-hangar bay ship is a bit like loading Beam Fire At Will III for your DHC Command Cruiser because you got one omni-beam. Instead of buffing something that boosts the majority of your offensive capabilities, you pick something that only buffs a small subset. It would be a build trap, unless it was inherently imbalanced or carefully designed to give equal benefits to 1-hangar pet builds as 2-hangar pet builds.
I think a decent specialization could be made that benefits all ship classes and doensn't ignore pets like the previous ones, but that's all.
Pilot, Intel and Command all offer benefits to Science Vessels. The turn rate benefits from Pilot alone are great for Science Vessels, except those on the low end of the turn rate range.
I wouldn't count Override Subsytem Safeties, though, because it's a specialization bridge officer ability, not something you just get from speccing Intel.
(Are you implying that a Carrier Specialization could also come with specialization bridge officer skills?)
Let me get this straight: This thread is about putting Hangar-enhancing stats into a Specialization rather than keeping it in the revamped Skill Tree. Your argument against putting it in a Specialization, which would be optional, vs the Skill Tree, which is less optional, is that pets are used by a small portion of the playerbase. Really? If it's a Specialization, you can avoid it. If it's in the Skill Tree, you're stuck with it. Tell me again how this is a bad idea. I'll try not to laugh too hard.
@bergins
No, I did completely ignore the skill tree aspect and only focused on the idea of having a specialization devoted to a narrow focus like hangars.
But, now that you bring it up:
If you look at the development time compared to 2 choices in the skill tree versus a full specialization, it's quite obvious that a skill tree pick is considerably cheaper to make. (And also has already been made.)
(And yes, in case you missed it, the effort to develop something is something I consider for whether a specialization would be a good idea. )
It's also part of your character, but no one can really make a poor choice here (unlike someone in a 1-hangar bay ship that doesn't realize that his hangar pets do not make up much of his combat abilities and he'd be better spend of with something buffing the rest of his ship. Or worth, someone misudnerstanding the ability and picking it despite not evein using a ship with hangar bays - after all, the other specs don't have ship requirements). It's the same thing as with the torpedo and energy weapons unlock - if you don't use torpedoes, you still make that choice, even if it doesn't do anything for your specific build.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
A Skill Tree where, without using Respec Tokens, you have to choose between Cannons or Beams, Torpedoes or Hangars, Grav Well or What-Have-You, or any combination in between, sounds much more like Specialization than... Specializations.
Kinda proves my point, thanks for that.
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." - Spock
A Skill Tree where, without using Respec Tokens, you have to choose between Cannons or Beams, Torpedoes or Hangars, Grav Well or What-Have-You, or any combination in between, sounds much more like Specialization than... Specializations.
Kinda proves my point, thanks for that.
You're welcome. I think I mentioned before that specializations are generally useful usually, and -despite the name - not actually specializing you so you have to use a particular type of ship. Which is why I think a Carrier Specialization does not fit what Specialization have been so far.
Specializations require a lot more development time than the Tribble Carrier skills: 3 skills and 2 unlocks (revisisted Tribble right now to count exactly) versus 3 to 10 unlocks and 15 to 40 skills for a specialization. It makes sense that this dev time is used to capture a broad audience (at least potentially) with as little as possible prerequisites to use it.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Are we talking about RL or a video game? Because in THIS video game. CARRIERs are Science ships. Now sit down and learn something before spouting off nonsense.
A Flight Deck Specialization could also theoretically improve small ship stats for when you pilot a shuttle, expanding its utility to something every player does at least once and may well do again in the future if new small ship episodes are produced.
I sort of like it. It should have a bit more to it that support any ship (as someone said). I mean, you can argue that command is junk if not in a missile boat too, and the ground skills are a total waste for 75% of the player base. Pilot is useful because its good, yes.
Useful to any ship might mean things like... summon pets (not your carrier pets) as a skill, maybe more things like the drive-by bomber call-ins from command. Maybe it would have a skill that *installs* one carrier pet bay into any ship. /shrug its not like fighters are all that poweful... this would be interesting, moving carriers to 3 bays, 1 bays to 2, and 0s to 1. Or maybe somethign like science, holographic fighter waves?
Might have some pet/team wide buffs.
Maybe it could have "scratch the paint" for all pets.
A little creativity here could go a long, long way.
Looking at how the Skill Revamp is going I noticed that no one can decide where the Hanger pet skills belong.
They were the first unlock on tac, then they, they were bumped to being the last, some people have suggested moving them to sci, but that would be bad for escort carrier and dreadnaught carriers.
So my solution is to take the hangar skill and the Hangar unlocks and turn them into a Specialization. Aside from the Daciot (available at Commander) and the Corsair (available at Captain), no ship gets hangars till Tier 5. Its the perfect choice for a specialization and profession (turn your Boffs into Flight Deck Officers).
Just a suggestion to fix the akward situation with Hangar pet skills.
I've been thinking about this a bit and and no...it wouldn't be bad? Why should Tac have their cake and eat it to, Tac already does the most damage with weapons and most damage in game...why should the do the most damage with pets too? Isn't Science about support and debuffs? What do carrier pets do? They support and the carrier supports them...so since the odds are we will never see a specialization for carriers...Hangar pet skills belong in Science.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
Looking at how the Skill Revamp is going I noticed that no one can decide where the Hanger pet skills belong.
They were the first unlock on tac, then they, they were bumped to being the last, some people have suggested moving them to sci, but that would be bad for escort carrier and dreadnaught carriers.
So my solution is to take the hangar skill and the Hangar unlocks and turn them into a Specialization. Aside from the Daciot (available at Commander) and the Corsair (available at Captain), no ship gets hangars till Tier 5. Its the perfect choice for a specialization and profession (turn your Boffs into Flight Deck Officers).
Just a suggestion to fix the akward situation with Hangar pet skills.
I've been thinking about this a bit and and no...it wouldn't be bad? Why should Tac have their cake and eat it to, Tac already does the most damage with weapons and most damage in game...why should the do the most damage with pets too? Isn't Science about support and debuffs? What do carrier pets do? They support and the carrier supports them...so since the odds are we will never see a specialization for carriers...Hangar pet skills belong in Science.
Hanger pets don't belong to just science. My engineers and Tacticals rock hanger pets just as much, if not more than my science does. Hanger stuff from the skill revamp should be in specializations and not force fed in the skill tree when not every rocks hangers should be forced to take hanger skills. If the new skill tree enforces more diversity, then why is it shoe horning us into certain builds?
Are we talking about RL or a video game? Because in THIS video game. CARRIERs are Science ships. Now sit down and learn something before spouting off nonsense.
I havent seen anyone suggest they be moved to Science. I have stated numerous times that they should be moved to their own tree as they dont fit Science or Tactical. Only that the fact that the true Carriers in the game are Science is evidence they dont belong in Tactical.
Yeah, nothing tactical about heavily armed ships attacking enemies...
Are we talking about RL or a video game? Because in THIS video game. CARRIERs are Science ships. Now sit down and learn something before spouting off nonsense.
as a matter of fact there is only one or two carriers in the game that are sci ships:
Jupiter class [and not sure if breen isn't sci-centric]
apart from that we have klingon carriers being afaik all tactical ships
heavy escort carriers being obviously tacs
fligh deck cruisers being surprise surprise - enginering ships
but then apparently you are not taking klingon carriers/obelisk carrier as a "true carrier"
[but then if you ask me none of "true" carriers are true science ships apart from vesta being true sci ship with "some" carrier capabilities :P]
The Breen Carrier, Jupiter, Fleet Jupiter, Atroix, Fleet Atroix, Karfi, Recluse (aside from the Universal seat which is everything focused) and Vo'quv are all Sci focused.
All the Dreadnaught Carriers are tac focused, and are all lockbox ships.
The Escort/Raptor Carriers are tac focused.
The FDCs, Dreadnaught Cruisers, Command Cruisers, Advanced Obilesk, and Obilesk Carrier, are all Engineering focused.
The Three Vesta Ships are all Science focused ships.
Looking at how the Skill Revamp is going I noticed that no one can decide where the Hanger pet skills belong.
They were the first unlock on tac, then they, they were bumped to being the last, some people have suggested moving them to sci, but that would be bad for escort carrier and dreadnaught carriers.
So my solution is to take the hangar skill and the Hangar unlocks and turn them into a Specialization. Aside from the Daciot (available at Commander) and the Corsair (available at Captain), no ship gets hangars till Tier 5. Its the perfect choice for a specialization and profession (turn your Boffs into Flight Deck Officers).
Just a suggestion to fix the akward situation with Hangar pet skills.
I've been thinking about this a bit and and no...it wouldn't be bad? Why should Tac have their cake and eat it to, Tac already does the most damage with weapons and most damage in game...why should the do the most damage with pets too? Isn't Science about support and debuffs? What do carrier pets do? They support and the carrier supports them...so since the odds are we will never see a specialization for carriers...Hangar pet skills belong in Science.
Hanger pets don't belong to just science. My engineers and Tacticals rock hanger pets just as much, if not more than my science does. Hanger stuff from the skill revamp should be in specializations and not force fed in the skill tree when not every rocks hangers should be forced to take hanger skills. If the new skill tree enforces more diversity, then why is it shoe horning us into certain builds?
What I'm saying, since we likely wont get a specialization, the last place that it should be in is Tac. It being in Sci fits the most...I'd even rather have it in Engineering before it goes into Tac.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
4.) Are you seriously trying to argue that a player should be forced to purchase respecs every time he wants to change from one ship to another?
I am not saying this is how it should be, but it is how it is with the current live skill system already. If you fly a DPS Cruiser build, chances are you don't have spend a lot of picks in science skills, so if you switch to a Science Vessel, you might want to respec. And, if you play usually in a Science Vessel, you might not have bothered to spend a lot of skill points on weapon power skills or energy weapon skills.
A skill system will always mean that you take picks that are not optimal under all circumstances. Is it really particular terrible if switching a ship means you might want to rethink that build? Heck if switching something major as a ship is not a reason to reconsider a build, what would qualify, or what would be left of a skill system?
What I'm saying, since we likely wont get a specialization, the last place that it should be in is Tac. It being in Sci fits the most...I'd even rather have it in Engineering before it goes into Tac.
Have you looked at the system as it is on Tribble right now.
There are 3 skills in the tactical "tree", and one unlock choice in the tactical progression.
What does that mean for you:
If you have spend enough skill points to unlock the final tier of skills - no matter where you spend them - you can choose to spend those points on the "tactical" tree. Theoretically you could never spend a single point on any tactical skill until then.
The unlock is the only think that requires actually spending additional (and lots of them) in the tactical tree. And I think it's hardly a required ability to have for a Carrier - it's not like the other branches do only offer unlocks useless to a Carrier.
mhawkman provided this picture: http://marhawkman.deviantart.com/art/skilltreeS-594395326
Just like in the current skill system, you do not need to spend points in a specific career/class to unlock later abilities in that tier. You only need to spend a certain amount of points on the lower tiers to unlock the higher ones.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
My point is hangers are support, Science is the support base class. My other point is Tactical is by far king of the mountain when it comes to DPS...so why does the king of the mountain in personal dps get a skill that is support based DPS?
If anything it should replace the almost useless transwarp skills as the first selection in the science track...that way any spec could still access them.
I'm in game right now and looking at the tree, like I expected from hearing the reports, Science is TRIBBLE...by far they have the worst selections and the lamest ult...Science deserves something to make it worth while.
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
I agree that not all carrier/hanger-using ships are actually focused to any one spec, but are more so spread out with each variant (carriers, dreadnought carrier/cruisers, battle-cruisers, escort carriers, and so forth) focusing into different trees an roles. This is why I think placing more hanger/separation-pet influencing talents that would be spread out between all three specs would be nice, since than you give more options overall that can have a more carrier/pet playstyle feel. As much as I like the idea of either a carrier specialization, or adding a forth tree that has many talents an unlocks that are focused towards a carrier playstyles needs, I think just adding more talent options into each tree that are hanger-pet or carrier focused would be nice.
Even though as pointed above that each carrier or hanger-using ship is skewed towards one of the three primary careers (science, tactical, engineering), you can also look at the three main types of hanger-pets that fall into kinda the same division of roles. As you have the nimble fighter that is quite tactical oriented, the shuttles that are more science oriented wit thier support focus, and then the heavier an sturdier frigates that have a engineering focus. I could see adding talents into the three talent trees that could give a base-line buff to all pets yet would give an additional bufff/bonus to pets of the type that share the tree's focus (shuttles for science, fighters for tactical, frigates for engineering).
THe other thing I will say if they did take the time, resources, and feedback from players that actually enjoy an want carrier/hanger/separation pet using ships to have a more unique style of play compared to other ships, while also wanting to make the hanger/separation pets that they sacrificed a weapon/ability or console slot for to be more worth that price to gain them. I could see adding a forth line of talents that are as said based around improving your hanger/separation pets, which could take talents out of for instance tactical that bog down it's variety of choice an allow it to gain more interesting talent choices in the space that the hanger-pet talents had been in.
Comments
Also I think making specializations that are usable on all ships is not a good idea, as than you run the risk of them being abit too generic as time goes on. Making some specializations that focus onto different areas of the game, certain types of play, and ship types gives variety an interesting changes to playstyles you can create. There should be yes some specializations that are useful for a more broad, and yet still focused types of weapons or playstyles like torpedos an fighting from the flank of enemies.
Myself I would love to see them flesh out carrier and hanger-type systems, that focus a bit more on this part of your ships that have them. Like that hanger/separation pet using ships have a slot for each hanger or separation pet you can assign 1-3 piloting doff, which would basically be a dual doff that has both a normal doff ability it gives when slotted as well as ones for when slotted in a hanger-pilot slot, which would give your deployed pet/ss increased stats/AI/abilities from having it slotted to that hanger/separation pet.
Specializations already affect all ships. Every time you choose a Specialization youve invested in. Youre gaining the bonuses of that Specialization. Your character gets captain abilities from said Specializations as well. I dont know what ships youve been flying but 'most' T6 ships do not have Hanger Bays. Theyre a very niche group and not all of them are very viable for the hanger pets to begin with.
A Flight Deck Officer Specialization would be a better way of approaching pets than the new Skill Line where its hamfisted into the Tactical Tree. Most of the Carriers in the game arent even Faction Specific and at least on the Fed side theres only two true Carriers with one of them NOT being a T6 ship. Not to mention the Carrier Skills are at the near top of the Tactical Skill Tree which means someone is going to be investing points into a set of skills that will not transfer over to other Science Ships if they choose to change things up. If this person is a Science Captain that jumps between their beloved Intrepid and the Jupiter. Those skills for pets will have no benefit for them in the Intrepid. At least with the Specialization they could dump it for another one that would benefit them. Where as with the Skill Tree there is potential for them to have to respec every time they want to a change of pace.
It's not as prevalent as Standard Pew-Pew Builds and Gameplay, correct, but look outside that, Hangar Deck gameplay permeates this game and has only gone higher since Delta Rising.
Hangar-bay capable ships, whether they are double or single bays, encompass this game a lot more than in the past, and actually overlap many of those "Standard Play" style of ships, i.e. Galaxy-X, Ateleh, Akira, etc.
A "Flight Deck Specialization" would sensibly supplement such ships if the player WANTS more out of his Hangar Units. He could, for example, go Primary Intel + Secondary "Flight Deck Spec," or a 2-hangar player can flip that around because he has 2 bays instead of 1, and with many 2-hangar carriers, likely only having 6 weapons instead of 7.
Intel & Command already cater to general combat. Pilot is... Well, Pilot. Nothing exists for the main benefit of Science, but Intel offers some benefit (OSS), but there are none for Hangar-bay oriented builds and ships.
Are we talking about RL or a video game? Because in THIS video game. CARRIERs are Science ships. Now sit down and learn something before spouting off nonsense.
Actually just about half of all the recent ships have hanger bays, which is a really good chuck of the ship rooster actually. I mean out of 80 ships 35 of them have at least one hanger bay (or the ability to separate such as the gal-x, and advanced escort), and that might not be most of them, but that is to me enough to warrant a spec or tree that focuses on improving that form of play. Oh yeah I am not saying that all specializations should not affect all ships, but that there should be some that focus on niches to improve that form of play to give variety in how you play. Issue is not the ship if the hanger-pets are viable, but the fact that pets have been quite gimped an have issues themselves that hold them back.
I honestly think a career would be better that kind of would be a mixture of the command spec idea of using tactics, and also having hanger/separation pet buffing abilities. Which could introduce things that would improve hanger-pets overall to be better viable than they currently are, as well as giving avenues for the player to actually use a improved UI to better control their pets over relying on the wonky AI they have. Even if you do not create a full on carrier oriented on such a playstyle you could still work around the idea of a specialization that could buff things like their Ai an stats, while also using the Doff system we have placing in a slot for a hanger-pilot doff that by being slotted in this slot improves your deployed hanger-pets in a variety of ways (you could have it that you have one slot for each hanger-bay or separation pet the ship has).
I'll agree that I find the idea of limiting hanger-pet buffing talents to just tactical is a terrible idea most of all so high in the tree, and that they should be spread out into each tree giving buffs based on what that tree is good at. Such as that in science your pets might get buffs to shields/control-abilities/shield-heals, while engineering might get hull bonuses/resists/power-system boosts/hull-healing boosts, and tactical could give boosts to weapon damage/defense/mobility. You could even add in a talent in each tree that gives you a portion (say 10%) of the bonuses gained from consoles slotted into that tree's career type (science, engineering, tactical).
Why should a player not need to re-specc to play a different style of play? If they want to focus on a hanger/carrier style of play than they will take different things, but even a player wanting to fly the same ship with a hanger can still fly it without issue by forgoing those career/talent tree choices. To me it is like using a science oriented build in a science ship, but than wanting to move over to a tactical or engineering styled ship, as you can still use that science build just won't be as good many times or you can respec to improve the performance of the new ship. This is true of a hanger/carrier tree/career/specialization build just because it is less effective does not mean it will not function on that new ship, but if you want to use that ship at a better performance than you should have to re-spec for that improved performance. An I will say that 35 out of 80 for tier six ships that use either a hanger or separation pets is good enough to me to warrant a specialization focused on them, or a career tree that could do the same improving aspects of them (like having career path bonuses that boost the Ai or Unlock an improved UI.).
All the fuss is over 2 unlocks, Pets Health (which boosts pet health by 10%) and Pets Damage (by 10%).
These got put at the end where you pick one or the other. Not worth messing up your build for.
All the unlocks are not worth sacrificing the build you want when they're all minor bonuses.
Meanwhile the Carrier meat and patatoes are in the Coordination Protocols skill (+20% hull points for hangar pets, +20% shield hull points for Pets), Defensive Coordination (+20% defence for pets, +20% DR for pets) and Offensive Coordination (20% Accuracy for pets, 20% Damage for pets). And other then these three you need never take another Tactical Skill as a Carrier Captain if you don't want too. If you get to the Hangar unlocks that is gravy, but too minor to worry about.
I still think a Flight Deck Specialization, even if only a secondary specialization, would be cool still, but now that I understand the system better, I'm not worried about the minor pet unlocks.
Let me get this straight: This thread is about putting Hangar-enhancing stats into a Specialization rather than keeping it in the revamped Skill Tree. Your argument against putting it in a Specialization, which would be optional, vs the Skill Tree, which is less optional, is that pets are used by a small portion of the playerbase. Really? If it's a Specialization, you can avoid it. If it's in the Skill Tree, you're stuck with it. Tell me again how this is a bad idea. I'll try not to laugh too hard.
1.) All you did was confirm that I was right about the comment the 'most', in regards to number of pet carrying ships, being inaccurate.
2.) I cant even tell if youre talking Specialization or a new Class in that second paragraph.
3.) Hanger Pets, regardless of the uptick in availability of ships with flight decks, is still a very niche playstyle. Id prefer it be its own Specialization than on the Skill Tree at all. It doesnt matter if its in Tactical or Engineering or Science...Or all three. It just doesnt belong. Especially since no one can utilize those pets til theyre well up there close to level cap. The Skill Tree should be focusing on the player proper. Not something the player may or may not be utilizing at any given time.
4.) Are you seriously trying to argue that a player should be forced to purchase respecs every time he wants to change from one ship to another? Because thats exactly what youre doing here. If a player wants to jump from his Arbiter Class starship into his Jupiter or Concorde. He should have to respec to do it so he can get the most out of them? While someone jumping from their Guardian to their Phantom dont have to respec? You do understand they tried this before when the game first launched. And theres very good reason why that changed.
I should have made it more clear that I was saying it was carrier/hanger-using/separation-pet using ships as a type much like cruiser escorts an science ship types. In this light if you look at it most of these have between 3-12 ships out of a total of 24/25 released ships on the federation side for instance, compared to hanger/carrier/separation using ships having 12 ships out of the same releases making it that I believe only cruiser/battle-cruiser ship type at an even 12 ships released is equal to it. This was my fault and should have clarified myself.
That was kind of as both, was really tied after a 15 hour shift. One part is that if you did a carrier career like science/engineering/tactical, it would need more than just abilities that buff, as well as influence your deployed pets. Which is why i was thinking it would need aspects of the command specialization to flesh it out. As many times a carrier can be called a command carrier that will organize, and coordinate those ships around it using it's better recon abilities via both pets an non-pet methods. While also that even if you did not go the route of a full-career implementation it could translate into either a specialization that has talent choices that buff pets like how the other specialization work (intel, command, commando, pilot) just in a more specialized manner. Or you could make it a career tree that would sit alongside the science/tactical/engineering trees that come with the new revamp, but which would consolidate many of the buffs an bonuses to pets into a single tree that is optional to use. The career implementation would be the harder yet I think more rewarding one to use, as I know many players that like pet using playstyle, but that the gimped an minimal UI we have makes it a fire an forget style of play. While the second option to implement it as a career tree is an easier implementation process.
One of the reasons I am only looking at tier six releases of ships for comparison of hanger-using/carrier/separation ships is that you spend quite a short time in the pre tier five ships for it to matter much. Even when making a new character I would spend maybe a month or month an half of relatively short play times (2-3 hour play sessions) to get to level fifty. To me that is so little time to deal with a un-optimal talent choice, as well as that it is not the only choice we have to chose from, but more over you have the fact you get a free respec as well. I mean it is not like you actually have to grind eight hours a day for three months to get to cap or even fifty, as such just forgo the pet talent choices till fifty when you can start to get hanger-using ships an use the free respec to go into a more hanger0pet oriented build if you are looking at that style of play. I will agree that there should be more options in the trees that are focused on non-pet buffing talents, but not that the trees should be devoid of pet-talent options at all. There should be I believe more than enough talent options in the trees to get the ultimate ability without taking either any or very few pet buffing talents.
One reason I think that pet-talents that buff things like hull hp/resistance/power-levels, shield hp/shield-healing and such should be placed into career trees that are known for using such things (like science an healing or buff shield hp). Is that it would spread the number of talents that buff pets more evenly outside of tactical. and so making it less likely you will need to take a pet-buffing talent unless you are looking to use that playstyle. To me the trees should not focus on just one aspect of their ship types they use. but have a primary and secondary focus to them. With the primary being what types of ships they have most of, while the secondary is things that other careers or play-styles might like to get over other options. A player should know what they are going to play the most, and so if they are not going to be using a very pet focused style or ships than forgoing the pet talents is viable an can be done without issue, and even if they do fly a hanger-using ship the pets will still preform to some degree with out the pet-buffing talents. If the trees were so limited on choices that to get the ultimate ability you needed to spec fully all of the talents in that career tree, than i could see a point to focus it more, but that is not what I am seeing as it is looking like their is more then enough talents to get the ultimate abilities an have spare unused/taken talents.
I can see an issue with having to respec at 500 zen each time you want to fly a new ship, but at the same time I can get just about 1000 zen in a week of relaxed grinding of dill and converting, as such I don't think that is an issue other than maybe that respec tokens could use a bit of a drop in zen cost. Yet how much of a drop in damage would he take by not respecc'ing when going to a hanger-using ship? Not much an for a change of pace I think 500 zen is not that bad, most of all since he can still use both ships, but one small aspect of one ship is going to slightly lag behind. Also this is not about going from one ship to another, but going from one playstyle to another like going from a draining build to a full on tactical build. I can agree to disagree on this fact.
I think a decent specialization could be made that benefits all ship classes and doensn't ignore pets like the previous ones, but that's all.
Pilot, Intel and Command all offer benefits to Science Vessels. The turn rate benefits from Pilot alone are great for Science Vessels, except those on the low end of the turn rate range.
I wouldn't count Override Subsytem Safeties, though, because it's a specialization bridge officer ability, not something you just get from speccing Intel.
(Are you implying that a Carrier Specialization could also come with specialization bridge officer skills?)
@bergins
No, I did completely ignore the skill tree aspect and only focused on the idea of having a specialization devoted to a narrow focus like hangars.
But, now that you bring it up:
If you look at the development time compared to 2 choices in the skill tree versus a full specialization, it's quite obvious that a skill tree pick is considerably cheaper to make. (And also has already been made.)
(And yes, in case you missed it, the effort to develop something is something I consider for whether a specialization would be a good idea. )
It's also part of your character, but no one can really make a poor choice here (unlike someone in a 1-hangar bay ship that doesn't realize that his hangar pets do not make up much of his combat abilities and he'd be better spend of with something buffing the rest of his ship. Or worth, someone misudnerstanding the ability and picking it despite not evein using a ship with hangar bays - after all, the other specs don't have ship requirements). It's the same thing as with the torpedo and energy weapons unlock - if you don't use torpedoes, you still make that choice, even if it doesn't do anything for your specific build.
A Skill Tree where, without using Respec Tokens, you have to choose between Cannons or Beams, Torpedoes or Hangars, Grav Well or What-Have-You, or any combination in between, sounds much more like Specialization than... Specializations.
Kinda proves my point, thanks for that.
Specializations require a lot more development time than the Tribble Carrier skills: 3 skills and 2 unlocks (revisisted Tribble right now to count exactly) versus 3 to 10 unlocks and 15 to 40 skills for a specialization. It makes sense that this dev time is used to capture a broad audience (at least potentially) with as little as possible prerequisites to use it.
Nope. JHDC.
Oh that's an ez one. Because pet AI in this game is freaking dumb lol...
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
Useful to any ship might mean things like... summon pets (not your carrier pets) as a skill, maybe more things like the drive-by bomber call-ins from command. Maybe it would have a skill that *installs* one carrier pet bay into any ship. /shrug its not like fighters are all that poweful... this would be interesting, moving carriers to 3 bays, 1 bays to 2, and 0s to 1. Or maybe somethign like science, holographic fighter waves?
Might have some pet/team wide buffs.
Maybe it could have "scratch the paint" for all pets.
A little creativity here could go a long, long way.
I've been thinking about this a bit and and no...it wouldn't be bad? Why should Tac have their cake and eat it to, Tac already does the most damage with weapons and most damage in game...why should the do the most damage with pets too? Isn't Science about support and debuffs? What do carrier pets do? They support and the carrier supports them...so since the odds are we will never see a specialization for carriers...Hangar pet skills belong in Science.
Hanger pets don't belong to just science. My engineers and Tacticals rock hanger pets just as much, if not more than my science does. Hanger stuff from the skill revamp should be in specializations and not force fed in the skill tree when not every rocks hangers should be forced to take hanger skills. If the new skill tree enforces more diversity, then why is it shoe horning us into certain builds?
as a matter of fact there is only one or two carriers in the game that are sci ships:
Jupiter class [and not sure if breen isn't sci-centric]
apart from that we have klingon carriers being afaik all tactical ships
heavy escort carriers being obviously tacs
fligh deck cruisers being surprise surprise - enginering ships
but then apparently you are not taking klingon carriers/obelisk carrier as a "true carrier"
[but then if you ask me none of "true" carriers are true science ships apart from vesta being true sci ship with "some" carrier capabilities :P]
oh and carrier were party kdf replacment for sci ship see the weapon layout, seating, consoles, and build in subsystem targeting.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
All the Dreadnaught Carriers are tac focused, and are all lockbox ships.
The Escort/Raptor Carriers are tac focused.
The FDCs, Dreadnaught Cruisers, Command Cruisers, Advanced Obilesk, and Obilesk Carrier, are all Engineering focused.
The Three Vesta Ships are all Science focused ships.
What I'm saying, since we likely wont get a specialization, the last place that it should be in is Tac. It being in Sci fits the most...I'd even rather have it in Engineering before it goes into Tac.
A skill system will always mean that you take picks that are not optimal under all circumstances. Is it really particular terrible if switching a ship means you might want to rethink that build? Heck if switching something major as a ship is not a reason to reconsider a build, what would qualify, or what would be left of a skill system?
Have you looked at the system as it is on Tribble right now.
There are 3 skills in the tactical "tree", and one unlock choice in the tactical progression.
What does that mean for you:
If you have spend enough skill points to unlock the final tier of skills - no matter where you spend them - you can choose to spend those points on the "tactical" tree. Theoretically you could never spend a single point on any tactical skill until then.
The unlock is the only think that requires actually spending additional (and lots of them) in the tactical tree. And I think it's hardly a required ability to have for a Carrier - it's not like the other branches do only offer unlocks useless to a Carrier.
mhawkman provided this picture:
http://marhawkman.deviantart.com/art/skilltreeS-594395326
Just like in the current skill system, you do not need to spend points in a specific career/class to unlock later abilities in that tier. You only need to spend a certain amount of points on the lower tiers to unlock the higher ones.
If anything it should replace the almost useless transwarp skills as the first selection in the science track...that way any spec could still access them.
I'm in game right now and looking at the tree, like I expected from hearing the reports, Science is TRIBBLE...by far they have the worst selections and the lamest ult...Science deserves something to make it worth while.
Even though as pointed above that each carrier or hanger-using ship is skewed towards one of the three primary careers (science, tactical, engineering), you can also look at the three main types of hanger-pets that fall into kinda the same division of roles. As you have the nimble fighter that is quite tactical oriented, the shuttles that are more science oriented wit thier support focus, and then the heavier an sturdier frigates that have a engineering focus. I could see adding talents into the three talent trees that could give a base-line buff to all pets yet would give an additional bufff/bonus to pets of the type that share the tree's focus (shuttles for science, fighters for tactical, frigates for engineering).
THe other thing I will say if they did take the time, resources, and feedback from players that actually enjoy an want carrier/hanger/separation pet using ships to have a more unique style of play compared to other ships, while also wanting to make the hanger/separation pets that they sacrificed a weapon/ability or console slot for to be more worth that price to gain them. I could see adding a forth line of talents that are as said based around improving your hanger/separation pets, which could take talents out of for instance tactical that bog down it's variety of choice an allow it to gain more interesting talent choices in the space that the hanger-pet talents had been in.