test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

surprised the Eisenberg isnt a carrier

2»

Comments

  • annemarie30annemarie30 Member Posts: 2,702 Arc User
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?

    Shinano was a carrier being built on the third Yamato class hull, so, yeah

    We Want Vic Fontaine
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,925 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    DOH!

    after the new year?

    I'm guessing as part of the anniversary. There isn't an Alliance carrier yet.

    Maybe it'll take it's inspiration from the JH carriers then.

    We have Klingon-Fed and Klingon-Romulan hybrid ships now. Thus far there haven't been any JH elements in the Alliance ships so this would be a good time to add those.

    That lack of Dominion design elements does make sense in the context of the background.

    To all appearances, the Dominion is still the most distant and distrusting of the Alliance powers and they have made few overtures themselves, almost their entire presence in the alliance is Odo's expeditionary force because Odo wants to work with it, not the Dominion itself showing more than token interest in it after the Hur'q war ended and they didn't need help anymore.

    If the Dominion itself was more serious about the Alliance they would send some of their regular forces to be part of it too (which means Vorta captains the way all of them were in DS9) and not just Odo's all-J'H crews.

    As others have suggested, the most logical candidate for the next Alliance ship would be the last paring of Alpha/Beta big three and be some kind of Fed/Romulan ship. If they do that it could be great if it had a singularity core and drive rings instead of straight nacelles since there have not been many singularity core ships out in too long, and the selection of ring drive ships has never been very big.
  • edited December 2021
    This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • lnbladelnblade Member Posts: 410 Arc User
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    I would be more excited about this if it weren't for the fact that flight-deck cruisers are superior in almost every way - so unless this carrier is being paired with a revamp to ALL full carriers, either via a new gear slot for a pet-based aura system or an addition of a third hangar...that's really not something for me to get excited about.​​

    And how do you know it won't be a flightdeck carrier??
    They've done a cruiser and a raider, generally the pattern would make a sci carrier or a dreadnought next. Not unexpected, but still disappointing that they're going with a carrier over a proper sci ship. Whatever it is, I suspect it'll be a Fed/Romulan design
  • strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,672 Bug Hunter
    edited December 2021
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    I'm going to guess maybe an Alliance Carrier for Anniversary, though could also refer to a CSTORE ship.

    Still I'm excited to learn what stuff may be coming for the Anniversary Event, given Captain Geko's Tweet. I'll have to keep an eye out for a blog or summary, of what's happening mid to late January I presume.

    Hbr0Fm3.png
    lnblade wrote: »
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    I would be more excited about this if it weren't for the fact that flight-deck cruisers are superior in almost every way - so unless this carrier is being paired with a revamp to ALL full carriers, either via a new gear slot for a pet-based aura system or an addition of a third hangar...that's really not something for me to get excited about.​​

    And how do you know it won't be a flightdeck carrier??
    They've done a cruiser and a raider, generally the pattern would make a sci carrier or a dreadnought next. Not unexpected, but still disappointing that they're going with a carrier over a proper sci ship. Whatever it is, I suspect it'll be a Fed/Romulan design

    I'd love to see a Fed/Romulan design!
    Post edited by strathkin on
    0zxlclk.png
  • sierra078sierra078 Member Posts: 335 Arc User
    I'd like to see the wingman mechanic extended to Federation, Klingon and Romulan ships. Say for any thing Excelsior, K'Tinga, or D'Deridex-class size or bigger. The pets could be Aquarious light escorts or even full Saber or Defiant types, they could also use it to introduce the T6 Patrol Escort. Better yet let us customize the weapons and equipment on the wingmen.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,925 Arc User
    sierra078 wrote: »
    I'd like to see the wingman mechanic extended to Federation, Klingon and Romulan ships. Say for any thing Excelsior, K'Tinga, or D'Deridex-class size or bigger. The pets could be Aquarious light escorts or even full Saber or Defiant types, they could also use it to introduce the T6 Patrol Escort. Better yet let us customize the weapons and equipment on the wingmen.

    If they did that then they would have to think up a different schtick for the Dominion ships because giving the other factions the wingman mechanic would make the Dominion ships obsolete the same way the full carriers were obsolesced when almost every hybrid carrier got the same two hanger slots that were once only available to full carriers.

    The Wingman mechanic is a unique and interesting way to make up for the fragileness of the Dominion ships, simply giving sturdier ships that mechanic without balancing it by taking something else away would be too overpowering.
  • annemarie30annemarie30 Member Posts: 2,702 Arc User
    Flight deck carrier or a science destroyer are my bets, leaning toward destroyer, probably a copy/past of the Titan except intel or MW
    We Want Vic Fontaine
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 5,051 Arc User
    sierra078 wrote: »
    I'd like to see the wingman mechanic extended to Federation, Klingon and Romulan ships. Say for any thing Excelsior, K'Tinga, or D'Deridex-class size or bigger. The pets could be Aquarious light escorts or even full Saber or Defiant types, they could also use it to introduce the T6 Patrol Escort. Better yet let us customize the weapons and equipment on the wingmen.

    If they did that then they would have to think up a different schtick for the Dominion ships because giving the other factions the wingman mechanic would make the Dominion ships obsolete the same way the full carriers were obsolesced when almost every hybrid carrier got the same two hanger slots that were once only available to full carriers.

    The Wingman mechanic is a unique and interesting way to make up for the fragileness of the Dominion ships, simply giving sturdier ships that mechanic without balancing it by taking something else away would be too overpowering.

    Not necessarily.

    Players who want to fly a Dominion ship would still choose those. Extending the Wingman mechanic to other factions' ships wouldn't make Dominion ships less interesting, unless anyone flies those ships just for the Wingman ships, which seems unlikely to be the case for many players.

    Besides, there were always plans to allow players to lead a small task force that would have consisted of other ships the player owns, commanded by their Boffs. That was abandoned and the Wingman system was added in its place. Or so I have read somewhere.
    So basically, extending the Wingman system to the other factions would be fulfilling a promise (don't take that word too literally) made earlier.

    I like the idea.
  • naabal421#0722 naabal421 Member Posts: 162 Arc User
    Besides, there were always plans to allow players to lead a small task force that would have consisted of other ships the player owns, commanded by their Boffs. That was abandoned and the Wingman system was added in its place. Or so I have read somewhere.So basically, extending the Wingman system to the other factions would be fulfilling a promise (don't take that word too literally) made earlier.
    Hasn't Cryptic made this same claim about everything from the wingman mechanic, to personal endeavors, and admiralty? Its always "BOFFs fly ships" then morphs into something else.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,905 Arc User
    lnblade wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?
    Both the Bismarck class and Yamato class were outfitted with aircraft catapults and carried aircraft

    I wouldn't read much into that. You're not wrong, but basically every Federation ship larger than an escort has at least one shuttle bay. The galaxy class has three, for that matter. And if a lowly class-8 shuttle counts as a hangar pet in STO, why don't more federation ships reflect their hangar capacities? Because gameplay reasons.

    Even small ships like the NX and the Defiant had at least shuttle pods...the type 10 shuttle in STO is shuttle pod that the Defiant had.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,925 Arc User
    lianthelia wrote: »
    lnblade wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?
    Both the Bismarck class and Yamato class were outfitted with aircraft catapults and carried aircraft

    I wouldn't read much into that. You're not wrong, but basically every Federation ship larger than an escort has at least one shuttle bay. The galaxy class has three, for that matter. And if a lowly class-8 shuttle counts as a hangar pet in STO, why don't more federation ships reflect their hangar capacities? Because gameplay reasons.

    Even small ships like the NX and the Defiant had at least shuttle pods...the type 10 shuttle in STO is shuttle pod that the Defiant had.

    The Galaxy class actually had more than just three bays (though they never gave a solid number for the total, the huge main bay was actually meant for assault landing craft (probably the hoppers) and it had numerous smaller bays dotted around the hull for shuttles that filled the rolls of escorting the landers as anti-shuttle fighters and ground support like today's A10s.

    Those small bays are the ones usually seen in the show (as far as I know of, they never showed a full view of the main bay, just the landing pad itself near the doors, that big bay extended further forward than the bridge module and would have probably made a fantastic "carrier hanger deck" style visual for the movies if they had bothered to do it) and they probably would not be up to supporting a ship-to-ship fighter.

    The Galaxy class had the room in the main bay to actually be a carrier, but Roddenberry was dead set against any ship to ship fighters in Trek because there is no way that a tiny shuttle, no matter how souped up and tricked out with weapons tech, could generate enough power to do more than scratch the paint. And that is assuming they could get close enough to even fire on a ship, which with the pinpoint fire control the phaser strips had they could act like the equivalent of Phalanx turrets today's ships carry but with the punch of capital ship main guns.
  • sierra078sierra078 Member Posts: 335 Arc User
    Almost every ship you can think of was capable of carrying Auxiliary craft, whether they be shuttles, fighters, repair drones/pods, or something else. Think about Star Wars, nearly every ship in cannon bigger than the Millenium Falcon carried some kind of docking bay for fighters and shuttles. Even the small Corellian Corvette was once modified to carry a quartet of TIEs, making it a pocket carrier. When the Rebels captured that same Corvette they squeezed a DOZEN X-wings, into the bay. I would be infavor of giving every ship (that doesn't already have one) a basic hanger bay, but maybe limiting most of the hanger pets to shuttles, or reducing the squadron size on certain ships. Maybe from six to four for regular shuttles.
This discussion has been closed.