Give Fek'lhri Dreadnought a third hanger bay!

aftulus

Klingons original advantage over feds was their additional hanger bay. Why not return this by adding the fek'lhri dreadnought to the list of new ships with a third hanger bay.

My original idea is so you can put one of each hanger type for the fek'lhri on this ship. It would make it even more unique. It has the frigate, ramming fighter, and lost souls. It would make this a very interesting ship..

Now if they would add the gok'tad carrier to the mudd's market without it being in a 30k pack. Or redo it during the winter event. I would really use that space trait for the extra fire damage on my fek'lhri character. 8)

pottsey5g

That would be massively overpowered. As much as I love carriers making the strongest pet carrier even more powerful is going to far. (Strongest without SAD Trait) 3 Bays of Lost Souls would do crasy DPS. 3 bays would also make the pets invincible as well as doing major damage.

Personally I would be happy to give up my forward weapons for extra hangar bays but I don't see the devs doing that as the impression I get is they don't care about carriers and incorrectly think player don't want more carriers.

aftulus

What if they capped the number of hanger pets to only 2 of each type.

davefenestrator

Now that there are dreadnoughts with 2 hangars, full carriers do need some kind of buff whether it's a third hangar, +xx% to pet health and damage, or something else.

aftulus

Maybe it could be added to older 3/3's like the jupiter? Or the fleet version. That would be a good reason to get a fleet version.

pottsey5g

aftulus wrote: »

What if they capped the number of hanger pets to only 2 of each type.

We would still end up with 150% damage boost to pets from 3 bays, pets being healed every half a second so they are near invincible and Crasy DPS output from something like 2 Lost Souls and 1 Squadron with SAD trait.

3 bays by themselves are not to bad its when you look at how all the traits and doffs combos and how they interact it scales up to much.

seaofsorrows

pottsey5g wrote: »

aftulus wrote: »

What if they capped the number of hanger pets to only 2 of each type.

We would still end up with 150% damage boost to pets from 3 bays, pets being healed every half a second so they are near invincible and Crasy DPS output from something like 2 Lost Souls and 1 Squadron with SAD trait.

3 bays by themselves are not to bad its when you look at how all the traits and doffs combos and how they interact it scales up to much.

Yeah, when it comes to carriers, this is the guy to listen to.

I am all for finding a way to make 'true carriers' better, and at one time I was onboard with the '3 hangar bay' idea, but pottsey is right, it would be over the top. If they added a 3rd hanger, it would likely come with global pet nerfs that would then drive all the current 2 hanger ships into the dirt just to balance the 3 hanger ships.

It sounds like a great idea until you start digging into the mechanics and looking at possible trait and pet combinations, then you start to realize that it just wouldn't be practical.

dragon200052

Also another thought about using three hanger bays would mean if your using Squadron hanger pets from other ships with three bays that means there would be 108 Models flying around, and the game is already unhappy with just two squadrons out so adding more graphical entities seems like a bad Idea.

As others have stated Id love carrier buffs especially for "pure" carriers but while three bays could be cool there would be way too many downsides to get this to work to be worth it.

wynx2

While I would love carrier ships to have more hangars, too. It seems there are performance considerations if more are added. Some ways I think carriers can be enhanced while retaining the two hangar limit would be the ff:

1.) Give Full carriers the ability to rotate/slot in different pets in the hangar even in the middle of the battle (for as long as all pets supported by that hangar are recalled or dead). Why would a carrier captain bother to change loadouts in the middle of battle? Leading to the next point

2.) Modify pets to have different bonuses and disadvantages when going up against certain ship types. Fighter types would be accurate in attacking less than frigate size units(torpedoes, mines, other fighter pets). Frigates might inflict bigger damage against cruiser size enemies but have an accuracy penalty on anything smaller. Swarm type enemies might inflict lower damage than fighter and frigates but could degrade the performance of ships they "swarm" against.

This would encourage carrier captains to think about which pet is ideal as the situation demands and not simply think which pet inflicts greater DPS. It would also be more in line with carriers being more in a support role.

phoenixc

wynx2#7079 wrote: »

While I would love carrier ships to have more hangars, too. It seems there are performance considerations if more are added. Some ways I think carriers can be enhanced while retaining the two hangar limit would be the ff:

1.) Give Full carriers the ability to rotate/slot in different pets in the hangar even in the middle of the battle (for as long as all pets supported by that hangar are recalled or dead). Why would a carrier captain bother to change loadouts in the middle of battle? Leading to the next point

2.) Modify pets to have different bonuses and disadvantages when going up against certain ship types. Fighter types would be accurate in attacking less than frigate size units(torpedoes, mines, other fighter pets). Frigates might inflict bigger damage against cruiser size enemies but have an accuracy penalty on anything smaller. Swarm type enemies might inflict lower damage than fighter and frigates but could degrade the performance of ships they "swarm" against.

This would encourage carrier captains to think about which pet is ideal as the situation demands and not simply think which pet inflicts greater DPS. It would also be more in line with carriers being more in a support role.

That probably would not go over well unless the carriers came already equipped with one of each class. I think some of the frigates are still locked behind buying particular ships and not all carriers would be able to access both types without a large additional purchase.

One bizarre sounding idea that could (maybe) work would be to add an experimental weapon slot instead as a point defense system (which most of them seem to be best at rather than offense), or else have a built-in version of the point defense console but without taking up a console slot and call it the "standard defensive CAP" but without the overhead of the actual fighters on the server.

A variant of that could be to have a third bay, but only in defensive mode as a dedicated CAP, though that would probably have the same server load problems.

And of course, the third bay or whatever only available on the 3/3 full carriers that became obsolete by the flight deck cruisers and whatnot when those got a second bay.

aftulus

Adding an experimental weapon to carriers would be nice. That would allow the caitian and other carriers sharing with the other smaller caitain ship to use all of the caitian abilities and have a new combined loadout.

At the least they could try to add a third bay to the 3/3 weapons carriers(jupiters and small older carriers are pure carriers.). Then add the experimental weapon to the caitian and other appropriate carriers instead of a third hanger. This would give some reason to use T5 potentially.

Cross faction support carrier bundle + Cross faction allied escort bundle.

This could make a caitian build with explody experimental weapons fire.

You could also restrict the 3rd hanger bay to ships that can't use the newer hanger types. Or restrict them from using the newer more visually spammy stuff in place of getting a third hanger bay.

If we only gave the third carrier bay to ships with 3/3 weapons and pre sqaudron(T5):

T5: (possibly only to T5 or lower ships.)
1. Jupiter+Fleet T5
2. Atrox+Fleet T5
3. Fek'lhri Kar'fi +Fleet T5
4. Vo'quv+Fleet+Mirror T5
5. Obelisk T5
6. Advanced Obelisk T5
7. Tholian recluse T5
8. Orion Dacolt T3

This could be to help lower tier ships survive before getting to a better ship.

Also squadron like hanger pets could be restricted to T6 in general. A lot of these have access to visuals for lower tiers so I'm not sure which ones are being lost in the process visually or power wise. Or is the problem in the base existence of a model and the same for each?

Adding an experimental weapon to all dreadnought and support carriers could be cool too. Then the dreadnought fek'lhri carrier could use the fire based experimental to complete it's use of fire weapons. It could be only added to dreadnoughts with a 4/3 layout. Or anything lower than 4/4(8 total) which seems to be all of them. That would be a nice touch.

You would think experimental weapons would logically go on the biggest ships possible. Especially carriers. This would add them to the smallest agile ships and the biggest most sluggish ships.

On a different note I'm suprised the baul sentry is not a science dreadnought and doesn't have one bay or an experimental weapon. Especially since it's 4/3.