Now to address the question at hand, should the Federation get Carriers. The only way to answer that is to ask what kind of game you want. Do you want a game that is symmetrical or do not? Personally no I do not want something where each side is a cookie cutter of the other with different skins. And while this is simply my opinion, I think asking for the same exact things that the other faction has is idiotic.
Do Klingons want some of the things the Feds have? Yes, but we don't want them to be cookie cutters. We want a Science ship (and we are getting one it appears), but never have we asked for one that is exactly like the Feds, I'd actually prefer that we get one that is vastly different, but I'm not sure the devs are up to that challenge.
So then you think the Federation should get Carriers, you just think they should vary some from klingon Carriers. Launch Runabouts and things more appropriate to Federation fleets than the Birds-of-Prey and fighters we seem from the Vo'Quv and Kar'Fi.
Cloak can be argued as another thing, though the devs always hinted it was a possibility for the Feds to get it. [...] Universal BO slots, every time someone complained about the poor shield/hull stats on a BoP or the fact that they are short on total BO skills, they were always told it was the price paid for having universal BO slot, but not only did the Feds get the only other ship in the game with one of them, but they also did not have to pay a similar price in shield/hull HP nor in total BO skills available.
Where are the Federation Battle Cloaks? Are 9/10ths of the Federation fleet cloaking as the klingon fleet does? And are you really comparing the the BoP's entirely universal seating to the Nebula's single Lt. seat and suggesting that the Nebula should have the BoP's drawbacks with none of it's other advantages (all universal, Battle Cloak, cannon use, most manoeuvrable ship in the game) all while having it's own personal disadvantage (it is absolutely the worst turning Science Ship in the fleet, and many Science powers are limited by firing arcs)?
Because if "universal slots" and "cloaking" are no longer "klingon features" because the Federation has any kind of access to them, and this is seen as a loss... then have the Federation "lost" PvE because the klingons have a pathetic smattering of missions now? Have the Federation lost "Science Ships" because the Carrier can use subsystem targeting and use Commander level Science powers like the Science Ship can? Is it now invalid for klingons to argue that their PvE options suck and are lacking because they now have it already, at least in as much as the Federation has access to cloaking and universal BOff slots.
It seems disingenuous to argue about an issue of inequity and suggest that cloaking and universal slots are no longer "klingon territory."
From what I see, according to you, the only thing the Federation fleet "has" are the unique "retrofit" powers on the T5 ships, and I'm seeing a lot of disappointment from people on the Tribble board that the new Vorcha doesn't have one of these (not to mention an Excelsior BOff layout). I imagine since apparently any "bleed over" counts as a "lost" advantage that no klingon ship should ever have these... right?
Now I don't know about you, but I'd personally like to see something special on my B'rel Retrofit when it ends up going live. I already have a Hegh'ta (well, I mostly use the Haj model actually) and I'd like to see something added to it beyond (haha) a slightly different BOff seating as we've generally seen among the standard variations. And that is, after all, solely what makes Federation ships different from klingon ships at the moment (using the theory of any presence of something on the other side invalidating it as a claimable feature).
It's my understanding however that you don't want the factions to lose their uniqueness though, right? So my Bird can't have any special Retrofit power because that's what makes the Fed fleet unique, since beyond those they have nothing that the klingon ships do not.
Or am I wrong here?
Because if I am, then your reasoning behind what the klingon ships have "lost" seems specious.
Not to say that the Federation should or shouldn't have Carriers, but your argument against it doesn't seem to hold water any more than Jack_Armstrong's "canon Carriers only" argument.
Not to say that the Federation should or shouldn't have Carriers, but your argument against it doesn't seem to hold water any more than Jack_Armstrong's "canon Carriers only" argument.
It is clear you didn't read my post so I'm not going waste my time arguing with you. There is a difference between balance and symmetry. Tthe Vor'cha should have a "special" ability because that is balanced. It shouldn't have the same BO setup as Fed ships because that is symmetry.
I don't want to see Federation carriers either, and not because of the rampant Klingon whines about being precious and unique but just because the concept is not very Federation-ish. It's even borderline for the Klingons but more supportable there in theory.
I just think the canon doesn't support a Federation that would deploy 1) a warship like that as even the Defiant was a stretch for their philosophy, or 2) such a manner of cannon fodder (though you could make a credible argument for this based on the AR-558 episode).
Even the Federation Jupiter class looks really silly and looks like a big ship for the sake of having a big ship. I feel like this is the Enterprise-J and Enterprise NX-01 conversations all over again.
I'd rather see the time, money, and energy put into some true 25th century starships for all as opposed to the DS9-era rehashes we're currently working with. And hey, how about a ship chart that actually makes sense and makes something other than T5 ships useful for more than just grinding your way up to T5?
Now that the only remnant of this horse is a fine powder...
It is clear you didn't read my post so I'm not going waste my time arguing with you. There is a difference between balance and symmetry. Tthe Vor'cha should have a "special" ability because that is balanced. It shouldn't have the same BO setup as Fed ships because that is symmetry.
actually, he did read all of it, as evident that he at one point or time touched on every aspect of what you had brought to your defense. Not that it really matters.
actually, he did read all of it, as evident that he at one point or time touched on every aspect of what you had brought to your defense. Not that it really matters.
No he didn't as evidence by the fact that he thought I was using cloak as an example of something that was unique to the KDF but is no, longer. I made it very clear in my post that some might argue that, but the Devs have said from very early on that we might see Fed Cloak. Then he proceeded to talk about battle cloak. Then he completely ignored the reasons why Universal BO slots were said to be unique to the KDF (specifically the BoP). He simply took bits and pieces of my argument and argued against them without actually comprehending the overall argument.
Did I say no? Saying it twice then, No! Feds are not warlike. They didn't develop carriers.
This is a very silly statement. The federation has gotten a very stereotypical treatment, especially as of late, just as the Klingons have. However, unlike the Klingons being treated like "Space Vikings" the federation is being treated as this peace loving, pacifistic, weak willed entity that backs off at the slightest high of aggression. This is to call them the U.N. of Star Trek. And lets face it, if they were the U.N. why the hell haven't they been wiped out. U.N. troops are not allowed to fire back when being shot at. U.N. can't even decide to get involved in conflicts in which one country is brutalizing another. The Federation is Suppose to be more like the U.S. We want peace, but don't think you can mess with us with out meeting our mighty military. Just as the Klingons are not all about war, as such a culture would literally self implode and fall into ruin, the Federation is not all about non confrontation.
The Federation is about peaceful coexistence of different cultures and also the police force, trying diplomacy before jumping to combat. Trying to bring justice then just squashing other under foot. However, to say they are not war like, and wouldn't have invented carriers. That's a very naive and miss informed view of the Federation. Star Fleet (The military branch of the Federation) has not only remained competitive with other Empires, like the Klingons, they also seem to build quite powerful war ships; ones that can take the beating as they try to negotiate before engaging the enemy.
In fact, The federation has it's share of war ships. The Excelsior is star fleets battle ship from the 23rd century. They had designs for federation carriers and even troop transports back in the old technical manuals from the sixties/seventies. And there was even a constitution inspired dreadnought (With a third nacelle built above the hull.) All this aside, any nation when force to go to war will develop tools of war. The excelsior came out of Star fleets need for more capable warships to fight the Klingon Empire while they were at war. The Defiant rose from the impending threat of the Borg, the Prometheus is undoubtedly a warship as it's multi vector assault mode doesn't lend itself to exploration that well. And one of the truths of warfare is that if one side develops a weapons system that is effective then the other side will undoubtedly produce their own. Germans made the first jet fighters, Americans and the British started to make their own. Germans proved that submarines were viable weapons of war, the Allies started to field their own. The Americans made the first Nuclear bomb, Russia and other countries made their own. See the pattern here? I don't think there is one weapon system to date that hasn't been built by the enemy, including stealth, no matter how hard you try to keep that technology secret.
So, if the Klingons are using cloaks to great effect, star fleet will start to field cloak ships as well. Star fleet cruiser are built to be tough and fire all around, then the Klingons will field their own cruisers to match. Klingons have a viable carrier, then it would only be logical for star fleet to field one.
The real argument isn't about how Klingons will loose their uniqueness if they lost their monopoly on carriers, as technology rarely defines a culture, or identity. Klingons will always have the Honor of Combat and the Challenge of the kill. Federation will always seek to find peaceful resolutions to conflict, becasue they know that any fight, even one you win comes at a cost. (something martial artist are taught. "best way to win a fight is to avoid it in the first place.") However there is one thing that is much deeper here then you people are giving credit to. Carriers represent a fourth class of ship. Unlike the basic Cruiser, escort, science ship builds that dominate the Federation side, the Klingons get the "pet class", a summoning class that relies on spawns then the federations science ships abilities.
While I think that the feds would need actual fighter craft, they could still use a carrier to field repair drones, power syphons, and small frigate ships into combat, as well as field delta flyers, and the marquises ships. You could even change them up to field a different set of support vehicles to differentiate them selves from the pack. But it would hardly steal something from the Klingons. After all, you all share the same ground classes and still manage to be unique as far as an identity.
Of course, my personal opinion is fighters are almost worthless in the Star Trek universe. as they can't field the fire power required to be an effective threat to a larger ship. Even in STO the only real threat fighters have is their torpedoes, not their fire power.
I don't want to see Federation carriers either, and not because of the rampant Klingon whines about being precious and unique but just because the concept is not very Federation-ish. It's even borderline for the Klingons but more supportable there in theory.
I just think the canon doesn't support a Federation that would deploy 1) a warship like that as even the Defiant was a stretch for their philosophy, or 2) such a manner of cannon fodder (though you could make a credible argument for this based on the AR-558 episode).
Even the Federation Jupiter class looks really silly and looks like a big ship for the sake of having a big ship. I feel like this is the Enterprise-J and Enterprise NX-01 conversations all over again.
I'd rather see the time, money, and energy put into some true 25th century starships for all as opposed to the DS9-era rehashes we're currently working with. And hey, how about a ship chart that actually makes sense and makes something other than T5 ships useful for more than just grinding your way up to T5?
Now that the only remnant of this horse is a fine powder...
Actually, the Federation did field battleships, the Excelsior was classified as a battle ship back in the 23rd century. Of course the defiant is the only ship to be solely for the purpose of war, for it's lack of science labs and other non combat instrumentation. Star Fleet was the military might of the Federation, and as such, they had war capable ships that also served a dual purpose of exploration and patrol. In fact one could argue that many ships were more for patrols and defensive purposes, we just focused on ships sent out into deep space to explore. Akira, Sabre, and the miranda classes are good examples of ships with a more militaristic/police role then say the Galaxy and Constitution.
Of course I would like to see more 25th century ships, but one problem is, people fell in love with the older ships that were in the shows, so they have to include those, becasue they do form an integral part of star trek lore. Even the NX and Enterprise J. I got a feeling after the release of the other ships we have seen we will get a few ships that are more 25th century inspired.
No he didn't as evidence by the fact that he thought I was using cloak as an example of something that was unique to the KDF but is no, longer. I made it very clear in my post that some might argue that, but the Devs have said from very early on that we might see Fed Cloak. Then he proceeded to talk about battle cloak. Then he completely ignored the reasons why Universal BO slots were said to be unique to the KDF (specifically the BoP). He simply took bits and pieces of my argument and argued against them without actually comprehending the overall argument.
You're right, he didn't touch on everything you said, but it is evident that he did read it.
And the Universal slots, really. That has been one of the most unbalancing feature to hit STO. Of all the ships only the BoP got it, and effectively remove any class system from it. No other ship would allow a player to chose to grab powers outside the realm of their class. I mean, could you imagine a defiant in which even half the BO were universal? There would be more cruiser/escort hybrids running out there. Thankfully the BoP are much more fragile to make up for the fact that they can field much more powerful and more numerous healing abilities that nay other escort, while eliminating all the weakness of the cruisers. And then add in a cloak that can be activated during combat. There is a reason why there is a huge appeal for the BoP
Had they designed the BoP with fewer Universal slots, I can almost guarantee that a lot of people would not fly it over the Raptor. Am I wrong.
In all fairness many players, including myself would love to see all ships with more universal slots, even just one that can field your choice of officer instead of being forced into a specific build like we have been. It would open up quite a few variations to ship power design and even prove to strengthen classes. If the nebula is the test bed for this, then I support it whole heartily. Of course I always did find the fact that even though Klingons could field universal slots in their BoP, why does none of the other ships have it?
It is clear you didn't read my post so I'm not going waste my time arguing with you. There is a difference between balance and symmetry. Tthe Vor'cha should have a "special" ability because that is balanced. It shouldn't have the same BO setup as Fed ships because that is symmetry.
I did read your post. And yes, there is a difference between balance and symmetry, and I didn't address balance (except in the most minor of ways, and in response to yourself doing the same). The problem here is that though you're talking about symmetry you didn't address that, not with the arguments you made about ships to support it.
The problem here is that your big argument for the ships being "symmetrical" rested solely on the Cloak and Universal slots. That's what the body of your statement included for support. But there's no "symmetry" there either.
Your argument was "Do Klingons want some of the things the Feds have? Yes, but we don't want them to be cookie cutters." Thus that is, in your eyes, justified. Because the two don't become entirely analogous.
And then? "Let us look at the things that were supposed to be Klingon only and have been added to the Federation side." And you proceed to use the Cloak and the Universal slots to uphold the idea of things being "lost" thus obvious "symmetry" being created.
The Nebula's single slot isn't comparable to the Bird-of-Prey's entire setup. Are they "cookie cutter?" Is the Nebula like a Bird-of-Prey? No it is not.
The Federation's two ships cloaking isn't comparable to the klingons only having two that don't. Are these fleets "cookie cutter?" Is the cloaking ability of one fleet reflected in the other? No it is not.
Really, between the two the only ships which truly mirror each other are the T5 Raptor and the Tactical Escort Retrofit (which are within spitting distance of each other). There you'll find symmetry.
There is no "symmetry" beyond that, and a Federation Carrier, unless built entirely upon the design of the klingon ship, will not change that anymore so than giving a Retrofit Ability to a B'rel will make it tread on the toes of the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit because they both have Retrofit abilities.
No he didn't as evidence by the fact that he thought I was using cloak as an example of something that was unique to the KDF but is no, longer. I made it very clear in my post that some might argue that, but the Devs have said from very early on that we might see Fed Cloak. Then he proceeded to talk about battle cloak. Then he completely ignored the reasons why Universal BO slots were said to be unique to the KDF (specifically the BoP). He simply took bits and pieces of my argument and argued against them without actually comprehending the overall argument.
No, I entirely understood the stance. And I'm fine with the stance.
Your arguments to support it though, to be frank, don't hold.
You may have acknowledged that the Cloak was suggested to be "non-exclusive" but that doesn't change the fact that you added the argument to your post, apparently to acknowledge the issue and add weight to what you propose.
That and the Universal Slots were arguments of "uniqueness lost" to that side when it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of the ships. They were the all of it really, as nothing else is going to have a dynamic impact on PvP, the only time where faction-meets-faction and differences (or lack thereof) are truly felt.
Unless Federation captains start tossing Diplomatic powers at klingon captains then the Diplomacy and things of that nature are, in the end, not of import when it comes to "evening" or "differentiating" the two fleets of ships. Yeah, the klingon faction NEEDS more content (like a mother ****er) but that's neither here nor there when it comes to hard and fast ships, which is exactly what we're talking about here. Discussing things like PvE content loads and unrelated faction-specific systems are best discussed on their own merits, and not in a topic about ships (for instance, if we give romulans 700x the PvE content the Federation has, that's hardly going to hold up as a reason for it being acceptable to give them only one ship, now is it? That's not going to hold up well when ships collide).
And the Universal slots, really. That has been one of the most unbalancing feature to hit STO. Of all the ships only the BoP got it, and effectively remove any class system from it.
Yes, but the Bird-of-Prey eats it on a LOT of fronts for that benefit.
I know because Kraelek, my Lt.General, pilots a fifth tier Bird. It isn't unbalanced quite simply because is it hobbled in so many way. The least hull. The least shields. The least weapons (tied with other 6-loaded ships). The least devices (tying with the Escorts and Raptors). The second least crew (behind only the Tactical Escort Retrofit).
What the Bird is, quite simply, is very unique... even with the existence of the Nebula, which does nothing to step on the Bird's toes even with the Nebula's lone universal slot.
I am talking abou the tribble hunt and Klingon can't use Fed Tricorders well missions. They are about as boring and repetive as the Federation exploration missions, admittedly. But at least they are not the same. (More to the Tribble stuff later )
your still talking about the 8 missions out of 51 levels right ?, and they are pretty much the only missions other then the nebula which is the same mission, same layout, diffrent enemy skins
Now I am talking about those 8 missions. Count how many new storyline missions the Feds got since the release of the game.
well yea and i am gratefull, and to be honest thats only been recent
Of course it has been recent. We're not in a magical wonderland where mission grow on trees.
when did this happen, i never got any extra slots
[/QUOTE]
A while ago. The Nev'Var didn't have the 3rd Tactical Console, and the Raptor didn't have the 3rd Engineering Console. Not sure what the BoP or the Carrier got. (Not sure hte latter got anything.)
well if somebody took away your ball you would want it back to right ?
No one yet has given Viral Matrix users their ball back, though.
your kidding right[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't take it too seriously. But there is always this impression that the KDF can never have nice things, and t hat's not true.
The Federation did most certainly not get 8 new storyline missions over its 51 levels. You might think that is inisignificant because they already have so many. But I already did those old missions with my Fed. On my 3rd Fed alt, I completed almost none of them, because I couldn't stand it anymore.
Of course I hate it even more that leveling my Klingon alts requires so much repetitive "non-content".
All the stuff Feds cried for - they are small things. And they get the small things.
All the KLingons cried for - many of them are large things. But they also only get small things. Like 8 missions and not 30 or whatever would be needed to "equalize" missions.
The truth of the matter is not that the Feds get more then the Klingons get. It's that everyone gets small things (or small steps.) The size of the gap between Fed and Klingons does not affet the speed at which Cryptic can create new stuff.
I would say that Cryptic made some mistakes when prioritizing their content in the early days. The 3 Fed ship costumes that were added - they shouldn't have stopped there. They should have squeezed in 3 KDF ship costumes, too, for example. Before that... I don't think they could have done anything differently. Not without making the game shallow for both sides. We're not just talking about a lack in endgame content, but in all content. Before that, they only thing they could have done is tell Atari they need 1 year more. Of course then we wouldn't be here and crying about lack of endgame content or lack of support for the Klingon faction, we could cry about Startrek Online being the Duke Nukem Forever of MMOs, after 5 years of wasted Perpetual development 3 years of Cryptic development (and maybe Atari closing doors.)
Whoever thought that adding a lot of Tribble-Hunting content in the Exploration Mission deserves to stub his toe in a particular unconvenient moment. Same for the guy or gal that thought that the open instance principle of sector defense was not needed for empire defense missions. :mad:
Klingon players wants something? like new ships? cryptics response: "oh sorry it got pushed back to season 10 ........ our team here at cryptic only caters to federation carebears.":rolleyes:
dun wanna have a godddarn carrier.. i want a kickass battleship.
Cryptic has already said there will be no other faction other than the KDF with a carrier. Period.
There has only been one such fed carrier ever in star trek and it was shown for a very brief moment in one of the movies. It has never been in anything else ever. Not even in a comic or book. No other Faction has ever had a carrier ever. This has been asked and answered and the same answer comes from cryptic. no NO NO!!!!!
dun wanna have a godddarn carrier.. i want a kickass battleship.
A battle ship is not a carrier they are 2 different class of ships.
the Feds may get a true Battle ship that is very possible.
for right now you have the emissary which is the only true battle ship on the fed side right now and the assault cruiser.
Cryptic has already said there will be no other faction other than the KDF with a carrier. Period.
There has only been one such fed carrier ever in star trek and it was shown for a very brief moment in one of the movies. It has never been in anything else ever. Not even in a comic or book. No other Faction has ever had a carrier ever. This has been asked and answered and the same answer comes from cryptic. no NO NO!!!!!
I'm genuinely curious now: What kind of ship are you talking about that was briefly in one of the movies?
The Akira, or something else?
1. FvK carrier battles would be large helping of awesome with epic sauce
2. First hand experience of just what a nightmare carriers are to fly would act as a giant STFU to all the Feds whining about how OP the new carrier mechanics are even though the counter-tactics are screamingly obvious.
You're right, he didn't touch on everything you said, but it is evident that he did read it.
And the Universal slots, really. That has been one of the most unbalancing feature to hit STO. Of all the ships only the BoP got it, and effectively remove any class system from it. No other ship would allow a player to chose to grab powers outside the realm of their class. I mean, could you imagine a defiant in which even half the BO were universal? There would be more cruiser/escort hybrids running out there. Thankfully the BoP are much more fragile to make up for the fact that they can field much more powerful and more numerous healing abilities that nay other escort, while eliminating all the weakness of the cruisers. And then add in a cloak that can be activated during combat. There is a reason why there is a huge appeal for the BoP
Had they designed the BoP with fewer Universal slots, I can almost guarantee that a lot of people would not fly it over the Raptor. Am I wrong.
In all fairness many players, including myself would love to see all ships with more universal slots, even just one that can field your choice of officer instead of being forced into a specific build like we have been. It would open up quite a few variations to ship power design and even prove to strengthen classes. If the nebula is the test bed for this, then I support it whole heartily. Of course I always did find the fact that even though Klingons could field universal slots in their BoP, why does none of the other ships have it?
Anytime anyone focuses on the Universal BoP slots or even battle cloak it becomes clear they've never spent much time in one.
The BoP has the worst hull and shield HP in the game, it has fewer total BO skills. It has always been said that the BoP was given Universal BO slots to balance these handicaps. Now the Nebula got a Universal BO slot, but it gave up nothing to gain it. The Hull and shields are the same as a normal Science ship. The total number of BO skills is the same as all other ships of its tier (save the BoP).
You argue the the Universal slots is an appeal to play the BoP. I do not disagree, in fact that is one of my arguments in my previous posts. If the point of these things was to create appeals so people will play the potentially underpopulated faction, why do you give those unique things away? Then to act surprised that given them away to the other faction weakens the KDF stinks of shortsighted circular logic.
I do not want a symmetrical game. Pre-beta there were a number of posts asking for carriers for the Feds (keep in mind I have both Fed and KDF toons) arguing that it was "unfair" that one faction get something the other didn't. Let us disregard the irony that the KDF has not been given a plethora of things the Feds have (equal PvE content, a 200 day Vet reward, Lt. Gen/VA level uniform option, etc...) and just look at what the Devs have basically set up here. The Devs launched with two factions that at least when it comes to PvP were asymmetrically paired. Rather than creating parallel factions with the same capabilities they made two factions with different but balanced capabilities.
Now unfortunately they are giving a number of those capabilities to the other side. So far this has been one sided, but as I said in my original post. I don't want a Science ship that does the same thing as the Federation Science ships. The Vo'quv does not count as the KDF having a science ships since it is billed as a carrier and plays more like a carrier. Furthermore they did not nor have they ever offered to give us carriers at levels below T5. Again balance vs. Symmetry. Sadly it appears our sciences ship that is coming will be a clone of one of the Fed ones and possibly only at T5. The Vor'cha appears to be nothing but a Fed clone with a Klingon skin. They are planning on giving us refitted Fed Patrol missions...
What they should be focusing on is things like the new Nausicaan ship as it appears to be something different than just a Fed clone. Instead most of what we are getting is mudding the differences between the two factions and much of what the Feds are getting is doing the same.
What does this say for the proposed new Romulan faction? Do you want the Romulans to be clones of the Federation or the Klingons? I certainly don't I want something unique and interesting because only that will extend the life of this game. There will only be so much that can be done as a Fed or a Klink the only thing that will keep STO going is if they keep the factions different and give people a reason to play all of them.
[...] Now the Nebula got a Universal BO slot, but it gave up nothing to gain it. The Hull and shields are the same as a normal Science ship. The total number of BO skills is the same as all other ships of its tier (save the BoP).
You can't expect it to have the breadth of the BoP's drawbacks since the Nebula doesn't Battle Cloak, it doesn't have good turning (much less the best in the game), and it doesn't have a Commander Universal, Lt.Commander Universal and a second Lt. Universal Slot.
The Nebula only has a single Universal Slot of Lt. level. It loses both a Console (which is the standard sacrifice for a T5 special ability) and a serious amount of turning (and several Science powers have limited firing arcs, making that a fairly large drawback for the vessel).
You argue the the Universal slots is an appeal to play the BoP. I do not disagree, in fact that is one of my arguments in my previous posts. If the point of these things was to create appeals so people will play the potentially underpopulated faction, why do you give those unique things away? Then to act surprised that given them away to the other faction weakens the KDF stinks of shortsighted circular logic.
Except that the BoP's unique thing is having:
(1) A Battle Cloak
(2) ALL of it's BOff Slots being universal
(3) The best turning in the game
What the BoP has that is unique has NOT been "given [...] away to the other faction". The Nebula cannot turn like a BoP. It cannot use use Tactical or Engineering Commander powers like a BoP can. It cannot Battle Cloak like a BoP.
Your argument rests on the "BoP Experience" now existing within the Federation fleet through the Nebula. It doesn't.
Now unfortunately they are giving a number of those capabilities to the other side. So far this has been one sided, but as I said in my original post. I don't want a Science ship that does the same thing as the Federation Science ships. The Vo'quv does not count as the KDF having a science ships since it is billed as a carrier and plays more like a carrier.
So if it is fine for the klingons to have a Science-ish Vessel in the Carrier that isn't entirely like a Science Vessel, and there is no symmetry there... then how does a Federation Carrier automatically become taboo due to "symmetry"? By that logic simply making it's deployables somewhat different and shifting it's focus from Science to, say, Engineering should be more than enough to make a Federation Carrier an asymmetrical vessel.
And how exactly does the Carrier not step on Science Vessel's toes when it has the Science Vessel's subsystem targeting and it's Commander-level Science power... yet the Nebula having a single Lt.-level Universal Slot steps on the BoP's toes despite not having a fully universal load out, incredible turning and battle cloaking?
You are assuming I'm saying no to Fed carriers. I'm saying no to Fed carriers being what KDF ships are. While I'd rather see them add something completely unique for the Feds. I also hold a fear that any Fed carrier will be a clone of one of the two KDF carriers because the dev team is too small to create and balance new content.
Above all I'm arguing for two factions that have asymmetrical parity. Not against Carriers, but again you haven't read my posts and so make assumptions I have simply not stated.
The Nebula is not symmetrical, but it is a balance issue. It does not give up nearly what the BoP does for what it received. This was my argument in the Nebula thread and it still is. You'll notice that when it was announced with an Ensign Universal slot, I didn't have a problem with the Nebula. Once they bumped that slot, my comments were requesting a review of the BoP's stats and not even a nerf of the Nebula. I'd actually be ok with the Nebula getting a bump in turn rate if the BoP got a bump in Hull and Shield HP. This is what I said and I stand by the fact that the BoP pays a higher prices for its Universal BO slots than the Nebula does for it's one Lt. Universal slot, special power and higher Hull/Shield HP.
Universal BO slots, every time someone complained about the poor shield/hull stats on a BoP or the fact that they are short on total BO skills, they were always told it was the price paid for having universal BO slot, but not only did the Feds get the only other ship in the game with one of them, but they also did not have to pay a similar price in shield/hull HP nor in total BO skills available.
Again Balance issues are not symmetry issues. The only place I can see where you believe I'm am emphatically against a Fed Carrier is perhaps this -
Now to address the question at hand, should the Federation get Carriers. The only way to answer that is to ask what kind of game you want. Do you want a game that is symmetrical or do not? Personally no I do not want something where each side is a cookie cutter of the other with different skins. And while this is simply my opinion, I think asking for the same exact things that the other faction has is idiotic.
Now perhaps I was a little unclear here, but what I said is asking for the "same exact things" is idiotic. I stand by that. While I'm not against a Fed carrier in principle given the things I highlighted previously it is clear the Devs don't have the time right now to create unique ship designs for factions (see the complaints that the KDF is getting a clone of one of the Fed sciences ships and like complaints).
You're qualifying that now, but the post I'm responding to is the first time you've actually done that. Until now you've actually not said that a Federation Carrier that differed from the klingon Carrier would be acceptable, and you started with a statement that tells us that implementing one will make the game symmetrical, which you've told us you don't want. Now yes, with your latest post you do clarify yourself on this matter, but until then it's not what was actually posted.
In fact, if you look at my first response to you I directly addressed this. The first sentence was, "So then you think the Federation should get Carriers, you just think they should vary some from klingon Carriers." This was an interpretation of your arguments, but was not what you put forward as a stance. I brought it up specifically because you did not, and so that you could either acknowledge it or deny it.
While I'd rather see them add something completely unique for the Feds.
So would I. In fact, I think Carriers in Star Trek are stupid in general (so are fighters, and yes they're canon, but elements of canon aren't immune to stupidity) and I really don't have real desire to see them on either side.
Above all I'm arguing for two factions that have asymmetrical parity. Not against Carriers, but again you haven't read my posts and so make assumptions I have simply not stated.
And I'm in favour of the fleets differing in form and function as well.
I have read your posts, but you've not actually expressed what you were trying to until now. Your actual stated stance on the issue differed from your arguments attempting to support it. There was some dissonance there.
The Nebula is not symmetrical, but it is a balance issue. It does not give up nearly what the BoP does for what it received.
It also didn't receive nearly what the BoP did. It doesn't have a fully Universal load out, nor it's Battle Cloak, nor it's incredible manoeuvrability. In fact, the Nebula takes a rather large hit there, and for a Science Vessel where a number of it's more potent powers have restricted firing arcs, that's a huge penalty (and the main reason why the Recon and Retrofit Science Vessels are generally more popular than the Deep Space and Nebula).
Once they bumped that slot, my comments were requesting a review of the BoP's stats and not even a nerf of the Nebula. I'd actually be ok with the Nebula getting a bump in turn rate if the BoP got a bump in Hull and Shield HP. This is what I said and I stand by the fact that the BoP pays a higher prices for its Universal BO slots than the Nebula does for it's one Lt. Universal slot, special power and higher Hull/Shield HP.
And actually I'm in favour of bumping up my Bird too. Not because of the Nebula or what it has or doesn't, but how it performs in general. The last nerf the Birds took I feel went too far. That, however, doesn't have anything to do with the Nebula.
Now to address the question at hand, should the Federation get Carriers. The only way to answer that is to ask what kind of game you want. Do you want a game that is symmetrical or do not? Personally no I do not want something where each side is a cookie cutter of the other with different skins. And while this is simply my opinion, I think asking for the same exact things that the other faction has is idiotic.
Now perhaps I was a little unclear here, but what I said is asking for the "same exact things" is idiotic.
You got the right part. Here's the thing...
"Now to address the question at hand, should the Federation get Carriers. The only way to answer that is to ask what kind of game you want. Do you want a game that is symmetrical or do not?"
It obviously wasn't your intention, but that is actually a clear "either/or" statement.
This muddied further when you start talking about Cloaking and Universal Slots where these is no parity between the sides beyond it simply being present in some form on both.
the real solution, the feds get a drone frigate. Forget the slow moving carrier and fighters, give us our own pet class, but don't give us a carrier. I like the sounds of drones, plus, then we don't have to deal with the sacrificing good soldiers to suicide runs in weak ships. Heck, allow the frigate to drop out weapon platforms to give them some nice diversity.
it should have less weapons then the science ship, but be fast and agile. less tactical with a more even spread of science and engineering. like for the lay out should be something along the lines of
1x Lt Cmdr Science 1x Lt Cmdr Engineering 1x Lt Science 1x Lt Engineering 1x Lt Tactical.
3x fore weapon slots 2x aft weapon slots
2 or 3 deploy-able slots.
could also have power syphons, repair drones, shield drones , weapon platforms, and a few mobile craft with some power to be on par with the BoP raiders and the fighters.
the real solution, the feds get a drone frigate. Forget the slow moving carrier and fighters, give us our own pet class, but don't give us a carrier. I like the sounds of drones, plus, then we don't have to deal with the sacrificing good soldiers to suicide runs in weak ships. Heck, allow the frigate to drop out weapon platforms to give them some nice diversity.
it should have less weapons then the science ship, but be fast and agile. less tactical with a more even spread of science and engineering. like for the lay out should be something along the lines of
1x Lt Cmdr Science 1x Lt Cmdr Engineering 1x Lt Science 1x Lt Engineering 1x Lt Tactical.
3x fore weapon slots 2x aft weapon slots
2 or 3 deploy-able slots.
could also have power syphons, repair drones, shield drones , weapon platforms, and a few mobile craft with some power to be on par with the BoP raiders and the fighters.
Feds need to learn to like all the TRIBBLE they already got and stop asking for other peoples stuff.... and I swear, for us Klingons.... THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
Feds need to learn to like all the TRIBBLE they already got and stop asking for other peoples stuff.... and I swear, for us Klingons.... THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
So asking for a forth class is too much? I assume by the logic that Klingons don't have nearly as much as the federation, That we shouldn't also ask for new content, or Other things that would liven up this end of the Spectrum?
I play all sides, and when the Romulans come out, I will play them as well. I'm not asking for one side to get preferential treatment. After all, you don't solve other discrepancies by just reversing the situation and focus entirely on the other side of the field. We're not asking for canons on all our ships, are we? And I also don't see us asking to have your cruisers turn rates either? And frankly I'm not asking for the Klingon carrier, but rather a pet class for the federation and any other faction that comes out, becasue it presents a different manner of play style and options.
Frankly the Klingons have too much of the federation abilities and classes. I've never heard of a Klingon science officer, nor them using drones. But becasue both sides are set up with the same powers, it present an equal field of play. The ships them selves have different abilities, but hey all fill the same role. Feds have a lack of a pet class. Klingons have a lack of a true science vessel. While the Klingons are going to get their science vessel, via the faction ships, I don't see it as unreasonable and selfish to ask for a pet class for the federation that could be comparable but at the same time more unique and geared towards federation strengths.
I do find it funny how defending the idea of a federation pet class has instantly labeled me pro federation and anti-Klingon. While I do understand the frustration with the lack Klingon content, I my self will also have to suffer along with you, that in no way should force a stop to the federation side development.
And you should agree, becasue when they do get around to doing the third faction, do you want them to stop making stuff for the Klingons and just move on, or do you want them to get updates as they go, with some thing for every one? I know which one I would choose.
So asking for a forth class is too much? I assume by the logic that Klingons don't have nearly as much as the federation, That we shouldn't also ask for new content, or Other things that would liven up this end of the Spectrum?
I play all sides, and when the Romulans come out, I will play them as well. I'm not asking for one side to get preferential treatment. After all, you don't solve other discrepancies by just reversing the situation and focus entirely on the other side of the field. We're not asking for canons on all our ships, are we? And I also don't see us asking to have your cruisers turn rates either? And frankly I'm not asking for the Klingon carrier, but rather a pet class for the federation and any other faction that comes out, becasue it presents a different manner of play style and options.
Frankly the Klingons have too much of the federation abilities and classes. I've never heard of a Klingon science officer, nor them using drones. But becasue both sides are set up with the same powers, it present an equal field of play. The ships them selves have different abilities, but hey all fill the same role. Feds have a lack of a pet class. Klingons have a lack of a true science vessel. While the Klingons are going to get their science vessel, via the faction ships, I don't see it as unreasonable and selfish to ask for a pet class for the federation that could be comparable but at the same time more unique and geared towards federation strengths.
I do find it funny how defending the idea of a federation pet class has instantly labeled me pro federation and anti-Klingon. While I do understand the frustration with the lack Klingon content, I my self will also have to suffer along with you, that in no way should force a stop to the federation side development.
And you should agree, becasue when they do get around to doing the third faction, do you want them to stop making stuff for the Klingons and just move on, or do you want them to get updates as they go, with some thing for every one? I know which one I would choose.
Oh for the love of pete...really?!?!?!?!? *facepalm*
Why would the feds need a carrier? They are part of an organization of peaceful exploration...something that Kirk had to realize in ST VI. This is something that Archer promoted in Enterprise. This is also the case on multiple occasions when speaking to aliens in TNG episodes when they ask about the function of the Federation. Anyway...if you follow the line of thought, their ships would be ships of exploration with the ability to act as ships of the line. They do not have dedicated warships unless they are heavy cruisers. People in the federation are not like KDF people. They do not live solely to die for glory and honor for themselves and the empire. So why would the feds place officers in a deployable ship from a carrier made for war? It would be an obsolete ship once the war was over..It would be 'mothballed' after the war was over just like most of our navy was after the cold war ended....
So, why would the feds need a carrier? All the feds are promoting is a keeping up with the Jones'...to use a literary image. I know the klinks don't have a mid-sized sci vessel like feds do, so we have been asking for it..BOP is too squishy and a carrier aint for everybody. In reference to your statement about no KDF sci officers, then explain to me why in Enterprise when Phlox was kidnapped by a KDF team to work for a KDF scientist, he stated that there were sci officers...there aren't many of them he said, but they are there and try to do good work....I mean honestly, why would KDF people not have the same tech to a degree the feds have? They had peace for a number of years, and you know that people will sell tech to other factions especially during war. No honorable KDF member would sell carrier secrets to the feds, and even if they did, they would not build them because the fed councils and members would be appalled that the feds were building warships when they were told they were peaceful explorers who must defend themselves and such....???
I know I have rambled on long enough but ask yourself those questions, and try to justify a fed carrier....would you like a scout ship too like the BOP?...I mean really....
No Klingon scientists?!? Are we not an older space going race than the humans? How do you think we got into space to begin with, without science? Osmossis? "Grand Theft Auto" style?
It does not matter if one's race are explorers or conquerers, neither is possible without those little guys in the white lab coats.
Since Star Fleet is an orginazation based from a race that survived a major, nearly extinction level, war world and have become a people of explorers, and only wage war out od neccassity, I see little reason that the feds would have a carrier. One of the standard Cruisers of the line could easily fulfill any such role if needed and I doubt that Star Fleet would put resources into fleet of warships, that they would ahev to hide from thier fellow federation memebrs mind you, out of fear of being seen as hyppcrits to thier peace-loving ways.
The fedration should continue to be designed along the ideals of its creation and pratice war only as a defensive necccasity to secure its way of live. The ships of the line should reflect this attitude.
The KDF should continue with its ideals of war, honor and conquest and their vessels of the line should reflect this idealogy as well.
When the Romulans come along thier vessels should reflect their particular ideals as well. I always envisioned the romies as the "Drow" of space persoanlly. Sneaky warriors with a decided flair for polictal two-stepping and intrigue. Thier vessels should reflect this.
1. FvK carrier battles would be large helping of awesome with epic sauce
2. First hand experience of just what a nightmare carriers are to fly would act as a giant STFU to all the Feds whining about how OP the new carrier mechanics are even though the counter-tactics are screamingly obvious.
Fed carriers are a Win-Win :cool:
No other faction is getting a carrier this was from cryptic themselves.
They will not be giving anyone else a carrier.
The carriers are the science ships of the KDF.
every other faction has a science ship.
NON have carriers.
Research it for yourself. Cryptic has always said no to any other faction getting a carrier.
This has always been the stance and always will be.
So asking for a forth class is too much? I assume by the logic that Klingons don't have nearly as much as the federation, That we shouldn't also ask for new content, or Other things that would liven up this end of the Spectrum?
I play all sides, and when the Romulans come out, I will play them as well. I'm not asking for one side to get preferential treatment. After all, you don't solve other discrepancies by just reversing the situation and focus entirely on the other side of the field. We're not asking for canons on all our ships, are we? And I also don't see us asking to have your cruisers turn rates either? And frankly I'm not asking for the Klingon carrier, but rather a pet class for the federation and any other faction that comes out, becasue it presents a different manner of play style and options.
Frankly the Klingons have too much of the federation abilities and classes. I've never heard of a Klingon science officer, nor them using drones. But becasue both sides are set up with the same powers, it present an equal field of play. The ships them selves have different abilities, but hey all fill the same role. Feds have a lack of a pet class. Klingons have a lack of a true science vessel. While the Klingons are going to get their science vessel, via the faction ships, I don't see it as unreasonable and selfish to ask for a pet class for the federation that could be comparable but at the same time more unique and geared towards federation strengths.
I do find it funny how defending the idea of a federation pet class has instantly labeled me pro federation and anti-Klingon. While I do understand the frustration with the lack Klingon content, I my self will also have to suffer along with you, that in no way should force a stop to the federation side development.
And you should agree, becasue when they do get around to doing the third faction, do you want them to stop making stuff for the Klingons and just move on, or do you want them to get updates as they go, with some thing for every one? I know which one I would choose.
Personally I have no problem with a Federation ship that can carry fighters, even though it should indded be something different since the Klingon carriers are much more than just a platform for fighters, they are troop transports, mobile drydocks, command bases etc which explains their size.
So a Fed ship with fighters would be more like a makeshift carrier along the lines of stuffing a Galaxy with fighters instead of shuttles or a hull variant with larger shuttlebays etc.
However I'd like to politely point out that sentences like "Frankly the Klingons have too much of the federation abilities and classes." make me wonder whether you consider the Klingons to be blockheads because the density of scientist and engineers in the KDF my be lower than in Starfleet but who is going to maintain those ships of not the "Scottys and O'Briens with ridges"?
And sentences like:"I've never heard of a Klingon science office[...]" indicate you didn't do your research very well.
There was already a Science Officer aboard a D7 cruiser in the original series over 40 years ago. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Mara
There was also a very good example of a dedicated Klingon scientist in TNG: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kurak
even though it is indicated it is not easy for her in the Empire since scientists are not regarded as highly as warriors.
But then again who knows the inventor of the invitro fertilization Robert Geoffrey Edwards?
Very few despite the fact he won the Nobel Prize this year.
But how many can instantly connect the name Michael Jordan with a face?
We're not that different from the Klingons when it comes to the social status of our scientists.
No other faction is getting a carrier this was from cryptic themselves.
They will not be giving anyone else a carrier.
The carriers are the science ships of the KDF.
every other faction has a science ship.
NON have carriers.
Research it for yourself. Cryptic has always said no to any other faction getting a carrier.
This has always been the stance and always will be.
Finally, a feddie that has his head screwed on right...he as well says no to fed carriers. Well, I think he has his head screwed on right...I dunno, my time observing the feds has been limited as I do not have time to go to the zoo or on safari...JK....
I thought you were serious until I read that bit, but as I am sure you are aware that many sci abilities are frontal arc directional and the carrier is essentially a flying brick, it is now clear you are making a haha
Cryptic has always said no to any other faction getting a carrier.
This has always been the stance and always will be.
Oh now I know you are a wit and a jokester of the highest order given how often Cryptic has done a 180 on issue after issue if people scream loud enough. :rolleyes:
I thought you were serious until I read that bit, but as I am sure you are aware that many sci abilities are frontal arc directional and the carrier is essentially a flying brick, it is now clear you are making a haha
Well, there are sci abilities that require less turning or none at all..defensive builds w/ FBP3 and PSW, CPB come to mind...but we need a medium sized ship to make the smaller arc ones viable and have more survivability..BOP is still too squishy for a sci in my opion...lol.
Oh now I know you are a wit and a jokester of the highest order given how often Cryptic has done a 180 on issue after issue if people scream loud enough. :rolleyes:
Yup, people scream loud enough, that's how we get things changed on KDF side don't ye know?... lol. I do wish though that we'd put an end to the monkey see monkey do..Just because the borg have a cube doesn't mean that because it's there I can/should fly one too....Just because Remans have Scimitars in DSE's, does not mean everybody gets to fly one (maybe if we scream loud enough we will...lol).
Comments
So then you think the Federation should get Carriers, you just think they should vary some from klingon Carriers. Launch Runabouts and things more appropriate to Federation fleets than the Birds-of-Prey and fighters we seem from the Vo'Quv and Kar'Fi.
Where are the Federation Battle Cloaks? Are 9/10ths of the Federation fleet cloaking as the klingon fleet does? And are you really comparing the the BoP's entirely universal seating to the Nebula's single Lt. seat and suggesting that the Nebula should have the BoP's drawbacks with none of it's other advantages (all universal, Battle Cloak, cannon use, most manoeuvrable ship in the game) all while having it's own personal disadvantage (it is absolutely the worst turning Science Ship in the fleet, and many Science powers are limited by firing arcs)?
Because if "universal slots" and "cloaking" are no longer "klingon features" because the Federation has any kind of access to them, and this is seen as a loss... then have the Federation "lost" PvE because the klingons have a pathetic smattering of missions now? Have the Federation lost "Science Ships" because the Carrier can use subsystem targeting and use Commander level Science powers like the Science Ship can? Is it now invalid for klingons to argue that their PvE options suck and are lacking because they now have it already, at least in as much as the Federation has access to cloaking and universal BOff slots.
It seems disingenuous to argue about an issue of inequity and suggest that cloaking and universal slots are no longer "klingon territory."
From what I see, according to you, the only thing the Federation fleet "has" are the unique "retrofit" powers on the T5 ships, and I'm seeing a lot of disappointment from people on the Tribble board that the new Vorcha doesn't have one of these (not to mention an Excelsior BOff layout). I imagine since apparently any "bleed over" counts as a "lost" advantage that no klingon ship should ever have these... right?
Now I don't know about you, but I'd personally like to see something special on my B'rel Retrofit when it ends up going live. I already have a Hegh'ta (well, I mostly use the Haj model actually) and I'd like to see something added to it beyond (haha) a slightly different BOff seating as we've generally seen among the standard variations. And that is, after all, solely what makes Federation ships different from klingon ships at the moment (using the theory of any presence of something on the other side invalidating it as a claimable feature).
It's my understanding however that you don't want the factions to lose their uniqueness though, right? So my Bird can't have any special Retrofit power because that's what makes the Fed fleet unique, since beyond those they have nothing that the klingon ships do not.
Or am I wrong here?
Because if I am, then your reasoning behind what the klingon ships have "lost" seems specious.
Not to say that the Federation should or shouldn't have Carriers, but your argument against it doesn't seem to hold water any more than Jack_Armstrong's "canon Carriers only" argument.
It is clear you didn't read my post so I'm not going waste my time arguing with you. There is a difference between balance and symmetry. Tthe Vor'cha should have a "special" ability because that is balanced. It shouldn't have the same BO setup as Fed ships because that is symmetry.
I just think the canon doesn't support a Federation that would deploy 1) a warship like that as even the Defiant was a stretch for their philosophy, or 2) such a manner of cannon fodder (though you could make a credible argument for this based on the AR-558 episode).
Even the Federation Jupiter class looks really silly and looks like a big ship for the sake of having a big ship. I feel like this is the Enterprise-J and Enterprise NX-01 conversations all over again.
I'd rather see the time, money, and energy put into some true 25th century starships for all as opposed to the DS9-era rehashes we're currently working with. And hey, how about a ship chart that actually makes sense and makes something other than T5 ships useful for more than just grinding your way up to T5?
Now that the only remnant of this horse is a fine powder...
actually, he did read all of it, as evident that he at one point or time touched on every aspect of what you had brought to your defense. Not that it really matters.
No he didn't as evidence by the fact that he thought I was using cloak as an example of something that was unique to the KDF but is no, longer. I made it very clear in my post that some might argue that, but the Devs have said from very early on that we might see Fed Cloak. Then he proceeded to talk about battle cloak. Then he completely ignored the reasons why Universal BO slots were said to be unique to the KDF (specifically the BoP). He simply took bits and pieces of my argument and argued against them without actually comprehending the overall argument.
This is a very silly statement. The federation has gotten a very stereotypical treatment, especially as of late, just as the Klingons have. However, unlike the Klingons being treated like "Space Vikings" the federation is being treated as this peace loving, pacifistic, weak willed entity that backs off at the slightest high of aggression. This is to call them the U.N. of Star Trek. And lets face it, if they were the U.N. why the hell haven't they been wiped out. U.N. troops are not allowed to fire back when being shot at. U.N. can't even decide to get involved in conflicts in which one country is brutalizing another. The Federation is Suppose to be more like the U.S. We want peace, but don't think you can mess with us with out meeting our mighty military. Just as the Klingons are not all about war, as such a culture would literally self implode and fall into ruin, the Federation is not all about non confrontation.
The Federation is about peaceful coexistence of different cultures and also the police force, trying diplomacy before jumping to combat. Trying to bring justice then just squashing other under foot. However, to say they are not war like, and wouldn't have invented carriers. That's a very naive and miss informed view of the Federation. Star Fleet (The military branch of the Federation) has not only remained competitive with other Empires, like the Klingons, they also seem to build quite powerful war ships; ones that can take the beating as they try to negotiate before engaging the enemy.
In fact, The federation has it's share of war ships. The Excelsior is star fleets battle ship from the 23rd century. They had designs for federation carriers and even troop transports back in the old technical manuals from the sixties/seventies. And there was even a constitution inspired dreadnought (With a third nacelle built above the hull.) All this aside, any nation when force to go to war will develop tools of war. The excelsior came out of Star fleets need for more capable warships to fight the Klingon Empire while they were at war. The Defiant rose from the impending threat of the Borg, the Prometheus is undoubtedly a warship as it's multi vector assault mode doesn't lend itself to exploration that well. And one of the truths of warfare is that if one side develops a weapons system that is effective then the other side will undoubtedly produce their own. Germans made the first jet fighters, Americans and the British started to make their own. Germans proved that submarines were viable weapons of war, the Allies started to field their own. The Americans made the first Nuclear bomb, Russia and other countries made their own. See the pattern here? I don't think there is one weapon system to date that hasn't been built by the enemy, including stealth, no matter how hard you try to keep that technology secret.
So, if the Klingons are using cloaks to great effect, star fleet will start to field cloak ships as well. Star fleet cruiser are built to be tough and fire all around, then the Klingons will field their own cruisers to match. Klingons have a viable carrier, then it would only be logical for star fleet to field one.
The real argument isn't about how Klingons will loose their uniqueness if they lost their monopoly on carriers, as technology rarely defines a culture, or identity. Klingons will always have the Honor of Combat and the Challenge of the kill. Federation will always seek to find peaceful resolutions to conflict, becasue they know that any fight, even one you win comes at a cost. (something martial artist are taught. "best way to win a fight is to avoid it in the first place.") However there is one thing that is much deeper here then you people are giving credit to. Carriers represent a fourth class of ship. Unlike the basic Cruiser, escort, science ship builds that dominate the Federation side, the Klingons get the "pet class", a summoning class that relies on spawns then the federations science ships abilities.
While I think that the feds would need actual fighter craft, they could still use a carrier to field repair drones, power syphons, and small frigate ships into combat, as well as field delta flyers, and the marquises ships. You could even change them up to field a different set of support vehicles to differentiate them selves from the pack. But it would hardly steal something from the Klingons. After all, you all share the same ground classes and still manage to be unique as far as an identity.
Of course, my personal opinion is fighters are almost worthless in the Star Trek universe. as they can't field the fire power required to be an effective threat to a larger ship. Even in STO the only real threat fighters have is their torpedoes, not their fire power.
Actually, the Federation did field battleships, the Excelsior was classified as a battle ship back in the 23rd century. Of course the defiant is the only ship to be solely for the purpose of war, for it's lack of science labs and other non combat instrumentation. Star Fleet was the military might of the Federation, and as such, they had war capable ships that also served a dual purpose of exploration and patrol. In fact one could argue that many ships were more for patrols and defensive purposes, we just focused on ships sent out into deep space to explore. Akira, Sabre, and the miranda classes are good examples of ships with a more militaristic/police role then say the Galaxy and Constitution.
Of course I would like to see more 25th century ships, but one problem is, people fell in love with the older ships that were in the shows, so they have to include those, becasue they do form an integral part of star trek lore. Even the NX and Enterprise J. I got a feeling after the release of the other ships we have seen we will get a few ships that are more 25th century inspired.
You're right, he didn't touch on everything you said, but it is evident that he did read it.
And the Universal slots, really. That has been one of the most unbalancing feature to hit STO. Of all the ships only the BoP got it, and effectively remove any class system from it. No other ship would allow a player to chose to grab powers outside the realm of their class. I mean, could you imagine a defiant in which even half the BO were universal? There would be more cruiser/escort hybrids running out there. Thankfully the BoP are much more fragile to make up for the fact that they can field much more powerful and more numerous healing abilities that nay other escort, while eliminating all the weakness of the cruisers. And then add in a cloak that can be activated during combat. There is a reason why there is a huge appeal for the BoP
Had they designed the BoP with fewer Universal slots, I can almost guarantee that a lot of people would not fly it over the Raptor. Am I wrong.
In all fairness many players, including myself would love to see all ships with more universal slots, even just one that can field your choice of officer instead of being forced into a specific build like we have been. It would open up quite a few variations to ship power design and even prove to strengthen classes. If the nebula is the test bed for this, then I support it whole heartily. Of course I always did find the fact that even though Klingons could field universal slots in their BoP, why does none of the other ships have it?
I did read your post. And yes, there is a difference between balance and symmetry, and I didn't address balance (except in the most minor of ways, and in response to yourself doing the same). The problem here is that though you're talking about symmetry you didn't address that, not with the arguments you made about ships to support it.
The problem here is that your big argument for the ships being "symmetrical" rested solely on the Cloak and Universal slots. That's what the body of your statement included for support. But there's no "symmetry" there either.
Your argument was "Do Klingons want some of the things the Feds have? Yes, but we don't want them to be cookie cutters." Thus that is, in your eyes, justified. Because the two don't become entirely analogous.
And then? "Let us look at the things that were supposed to be Klingon only and have been added to the Federation side." And you proceed to use the Cloak and the Universal slots to uphold the idea of things being "lost" thus obvious "symmetry" being created.
The Nebula's single slot isn't comparable to the Bird-of-Prey's entire setup. Are they "cookie cutter?" Is the Nebula like a Bird-of-Prey? No it is not.
The Federation's two ships cloaking isn't comparable to the klingons only having two that don't. Are these fleets "cookie cutter?" Is the cloaking ability of one fleet reflected in the other? No it is not.
Really, between the two the only ships which truly mirror each other are the T5 Raptor and the Tactical Escort Retrofit (which are within spitting distance of each other). There you'll find symmetry.
There is no "symmetry" beyond that, and a Federation Carrier, unless built entirely upon the design of the klingon ship, will not change that anymore so than giving a Retrofit Ability to a B'rel will make it tread on the toes of the Exploration Cruiser Retrofit because they both have Retrofit abilities.
No, I entirely understood the stance. And I'm fine with the stance.
Your arguments to support it though, to be frank, don't hold.
You may have acknowledged that the Cloak was suggested to be "non-exclusive" but that doesn't change the fact that you added the argument to your post, apparently to acknowledge the issue and add weight to what you propose.
That and the Universal Slots were arguments of "uniqueness lost" to that side when it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of the ships. They were the all of it really, as nothing else is going to have a dynamic impact on PvP, the only time where faction-meets-faction and differences (or lack thereof) are truly felt.
Unless Federation captains start tossing Diplomatic powers at klingon captains then the Diplomacy and things of that nature are, in the end, not of import when it comes to "evening" or "differentiating" the two fleets of ships. Yeah, the klingon faction NEEDS more content (like a mother ****er) but that's neither here nor there when it comes to hard and fast ships, which is exactly what we're talking about here. Discussing things like PvE content loads and unrelated faction-specific systems are best discussed on their own merits, and not in a topic about ships (for instance, if we give romulans 700x the PvE content the Federation has, that's hardly going to hold up as a reason for it being acceptable to give them only one ship, now is it? That's not going to hold up well when ships collide).
Yes, but the Bird-of-Prey eats it on a LOT of fronts for that benefit.
I know because Kraelek, my Lt.General, pilots a fifth tier Bird. It isn't unbalanced quite simply because is it hobbled in so many way. The least hull. The least shields. The least weapons (tied with other 6-loaded ships). The least devices (tying with the Escorts and Raptors). The second least crew (behind only the Tactical Escort Retrofit).
What the Bird is, quite simply, is very unique... even with the existence of the Nebula, which does nothing to step on the Bird's toes even with the Nebula's lone universal slot.
Now I am talking about those 8 missions. Count how many new storyline missions the Feds got since the release of the game.
Of course it has been recent. We're not in a magical wonderland where mission grow on trees.
when did this happen, i never got any extra slots
[/QUOTE]
A while ago. The Nev'Var didn't have the 3rd Tactical Console, and the Raptor didn't have the 3rd Engineering Console. Not sure what the BoP or the Carrier got. (Not sure hte latter got anything.)
No one yet has given Viral Matrix users their ball back, though.
your kidding right[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't take it too seriously. But there is always this impression that the KDF can never have nice things, and t hat's not true.
The Federation did most certainly not get 8 new storyline missions over its 51 levels. You might think that is inisignificant because they already have so many. But I already did those old missions with my Fed. On my 3rd Fed alt, I completed almost none of them, because I couldn't stand it anymore.
Of course I hate it even more that leveling my Klingon alts requires so much repetitive "non-content".
All the stuff Feds cried for - they are small things. And they get the small things.
All the KLingons cried for - many of them are large things. But they also only get small things. Like 8 missions and not 30 or whatever would be needed to "equalize" missions.
The truth of the matter is not that the Feds get more then the Klingons get. It's that everyone gets small things (or small steps.) The size of the gap between Fed and Klingons does not affet the speed at which Cryptic can create new stuff.
I would say that Cryptic made some mistakes when prioritizing their content in the early days. The 3 Fed ship costumes that were added - they shouldn't have stopped there. They should have squeezed in 3 KDF ship costumes, too, for example. Before that... I don't think they could have done anything differently. Not without making the game shallow for both sides. We're not just talking about a lack in endgame content, but in all content. Before that, they only thing they could have done is tell Atari they need 1 year more. Of course then we wouldn't be here and crying about lack of endgame content or lack of support for the Klingon faction, we could cry about Startrek Online being the Duke Nukem Forever of MMOs, after 5 years of wasted Perpetual development 3 years of Cryptic development (and maybe Atari closing doors.)
Whoever thought that adding a lot of Tribble-Hunting content in the Exploration Mission deserves to stub his toe in a particular unconvenient moment. Same for the guy or gal that thought that the open instance principle of sector defense was not needed for empire defense missions. :mad:
dun wanna have a godddarn carrier.. i want a kickass battleship.
There has only been one such fed carrier ever in star trek and it was shown for a very brief moment in one of the movies. It has never been in anything else ever. Not even in a comic or book. No other Faction has ever had a carrier ever. This has been asked and answered and the same answer comes from cryptic. no NO NO!!!!!
A battle ship is not a carrier they are 2 different class of ships.
the Feds may get a true Battle ship that is very possible.
for right now you have the emissary which is the only true battle ship on the fed side right now and the assault cruiser.
I'm genuinely curious now: What kind of ship are you talking about that was briefly in one of the movies?
The Akira, or something else?
Why?
1. FvK carrier battles would be large helping of awesome with epic sauce
2. First hand experience of just what a nightmare carriers are to fly would act as a giant STFU to all the Feds whining about how OP the new carrier mechanics are even though the counter-tactics are screamingly obvious.
Fed carriers are a Win-Win :cool:
Anytime anyone focuses on the Universal BoP slots or even battle cloak it becomes clear they've never spent much time in one.
The BoP has the worst hull and shield HP in the game, it has fewer total BO skills. It has always been said that the BoP was given Universal BO slots to balance these handicaps. Now the Nebula got a Universal BO slot, but it gave up nothing to gain it. The Hull and shields are the same as a normal Science ship. The total number of BO skills is the same as all other ships of its tier (save the BoP).
You argue the the Universal slots is an appeal to play the BoP. I do not disagree, in fact that is one of my arguments in my previous posts. If the point of these things was to create appeals so people will play the potentially underpopulated faction, why do you give those unique things away? Then to act surprised that given them away to the other faction weakens the KDF stinks of shortsighted circular logic.
I do not want a symmetrical game. Pre-beta there were a number of posts asking for carriers for the Feds (keep in mind I have both Fed and KDF toons) arguing that it was "unfair" that one faction get something the other didn't. Let us disregard the irony that the KDF has not been given a plethora of things the Feds have (equal PvE content, a 200 day Vet reward, Lt. Gen/VA level uniform option, etc...) and just look at what the Devs have basically set up here. The Devs launched with two factions that at least when it comes to PvP were asymmetrically paired. Rather than creating parallel factions with the same capabilities they made two factions with different but balanced capabilities.
Now unfortunately they are giving a number of those capabilities to the other side. So far this has been one sided, but as I said in my original post. I don't want a Science ship that does the same thing as the Federation Science ships. The Vo'quv does not count as the KDF having a science ships since it is billed as a carrier and plays more like a carrier. Furthermore they did not nor have they ever offered to give us carriers at levels below T5. Again balance vs. Symmetry. Sadly it appears our sciences ship that is coming will be a clone of one of the Fed ones and possibly only at T5. The Vor'cha appears to be nothing but a Fed clone with a Klingon skin. They are planning on giving us refitted Fed Patrol missions...
What they should be focusing on is things like the new Nausicaan ship as it appears to be something different than just a Fed clone. Instead most of what we are getting is mudding the differences between the two factions and much of what the Feds are getting is doing the same.
What does this say for the proposed new Romulan faction? Do you want the Romulans to be clones of the Federation or the Klingons? I certainly don't I want something unique and interesting because only that will extend the life of this game. There will only be so much that can be done as a Fed or a Klink the only thing that will keep STO going is if they keep the factions different and give people a reason to play all of them.
You can't expect it to have the breadth of the BoP's drawbacks since the Nebula doesn't Battle Cloak, it doesn't have good turning (much less the best in the game), and it doesn't have a Commander Universal, Lt.Commander Universal and a second Lt. Universal Slot.
The Nebula only has a single Universal Slot of Lt. level. It loses both a Console (which is the standard sacrifice for a T5 special ability) and a serious amount of turning (and several Science powers have limited firing arcs, making that a fairly large drawback for the vessel).
Except that the BoP's unique thing is having:
(1) A Battle Cloak
(2) ALL of it's BOff Slots being universal
(3) The best turning in the game
What the BoP has that is unique has NOT been "given [...] away to the other faction". The Nebula cannot turn like a BoP. It cannot use use Tactical or Engineering Commander powers like a BoP can. It cannot Battle Cloak like a BoP.
Your argument rests on the "BoP Experience" now existing within the Federation fleet through the Nebula. It doesn't.
So if it is fine for the klingons to have a Science-ish Vessel in the Carrier that isn't entirely like a Science Vessel, and there is no symmetry there... then how does a Federation Carrier automatically become taboo due to "symmetry"? By that logic simply making it's deployables somewhat different and shifting it's focus from Science to, say, Engineering should be more than enough to make a Federation Carrier an asymmetrical vessel.
And how exactly does the Carrier not step on Science Vessel's toes when it has the Science Vessel's subsystem targeting and it's Commander-level Science power... yet the Nebula having a single Lt.-level Universal Slot steps on the BoP's toes despite not having a fully universal load out, incredible turning and battle cloaking?
To be frank, your arguments aren't objective.
You are assuming I'm saying no to Fed carriers. I'm saying no to Fed carriers being what KDF ships are. While I'd rather see them add something completely unique for the Feds. I also hold a fear that any Fed carrier will be a clone of one of the two KDF carriers because the dev team is too small to create and balance new content.
Above all I'm arguing for two factions that have asymmetrical parity. Not against Carriers, but again you haven't read my posts and so make assumptions I have simply not stated.
The Nebula is not symmetrical, but it is a balance issue. It does not give up nearly what the BoP does for what it received. This was my argument in the Nebula thread and it still is. You'll notice that when it was announced with an Ensign Universal slot, I didn't have a problem with the Nebula. Once they bumped that slot, my comments were requesting a review of the BoP's stats and not even a nerf of the Nebula. I'd actually be ok with the Nebula getting a bump in turn rate if the BoP got a bump in Hull and Shield HP. This is what I said and I stand by the fact that the BoP pays a higher prices for its Universal BO slots than the Nebula does for it's one Lt. Universal slot, special power and higher Hull/Shield HP.
Again Balance issues are not symmetry issues. The only place I can see where you believe I'm am emphatically against a Fed Carrier is perhaps this -
Now perhaps I was a little unclear here, but what I said is asking for the "same exact things" is idiotic. I stand by that. While I'm not against a Fed carrier in principle given the things I highlighted previously it is clear the Devs don't have the time right now to create unique ship designs for factions (see the complaints that the KDF is getting a clone of one of the Fed sciences ships and like complaints).
You're qualifying that now, but the post I'm responding to is the first time you've actually done that. Until now you've actually not said that a Federation Carrier that differed from the klingon Carrier would be acceptable, and you started with a statement that tells us that implementing one will make the game symmetrical, which you've told us you don't want. Now yes, with your latest post you do clarify yourself on this matter, but until then it's not what was actually posted.
In fact, if you look at my first response to you I directly addressed this. The first sentence was, "So then you think the Federation should get Carriers, you just think they should vary some from klingon Carriers." This was an interpretation of your arguments, but was not what you put forward as a stance. I brought it up specifically because you did not, and so that you could either acknowledge it or deny it.
So would I. In fact, I think Carriers in Star Trek are stupid in general (so are fighters, and yes they're canon, but elements of canon aren't immune to stupidity) and I really don't have real desire to see them on either side.
And I'm in favour of the fleets differing in form and function as well.
I have read your posts, but you've not actually expressed what you were trying to until now. Your actual stated stance on the issue differed from your arguments attempting to support it. There was some dissonance there.
It also didn't receive nearly what the BoP did. It doesn't have a fully Universal load out, nor it's Battle Cloak, nor it's incredible manoeuvrability. In fact, the Nebula takes a rather large hit there, and for a Science Vessel where a number of it's more potent powers have restricted firing arcs, that's a huge penalty (and the main reason why the Recon and Retrofit Science Vessels are generally more popular than the Deep Space and Nebula).
And actually I'm in favour of bumping up my Bird too. Not because of the Nebula or what it has or doesn't, but how it performs in general. The last nerf the Birds took I feel went too far. That, however, doesn't have anything to do with the Nebula.
You got the right part. Here's the thing...
"Now to address the question at hand, should the Federation get Carriers. The only way to answer that is to ask what kind of game you want. Do you want a game that is symmetrical or do not?"
It obviously wasn't your intention, but that is actually a clear "either/or" statement.
This muddied further when you start talking about Cloaking and Universal Slots where these is no parity between the sides beyond it simply being present in some form on both.
it should have less weapons then the science ship, but be fast and agile. less tactical with a more even spread of science and engineering. like for the lay out should be something along the lines of
1x Lt Cmdr Science 1x Lt Cmdr Engineering 1x Lt Science 1x Lt Engineering 1x Lt Tactical.
3x fore weapon slots 2x aft weapon slots
2 or 3 deploy-able slots.
could also have power syphons, repair drones, shield drones , weapon platforms, and a few mobile craft with some power to be on par with the BoP raiders and the fighters.
Feds need to learn to like all the TRIBBLE they already got and stop asking for other peoples stuff.... and I swear, for us Klingons.... THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!
So asking for a forth class is too much? I assume by the logic that Klingons don't have nearly as much as the federation, That we shouldn't also ask for new content, or Other things that would liven up this end of the Spectrum?
I play all sides, and when the Romulans come out, I will play them as well. I'm not asking for one side to get preferential treatment. After all, you don't solve other discrepancies by just reversing the situation and focus entirely on the other side of the field. We're not asking for canons on all our ships, are we? And I also don't see us asking to have your cruisers turn rates either? And frankly I'm not asking for the Klingon carrier, but rather a pet class for the federation and any other faction that comes out, becasue it presents a different manner of play style and options.
Frankly the Klingons have too much of the federation abilities and classes. I've never heard of a Klingon science officer, nor them using drones. But becasue both sides are set up with the same powers, it present an equal field of play. The ships them selves have different abilities, but hey all fill the same role. Feds have a lack of a pet class. Klingons have a lack of a true science vessel. While the Klingons are going to get their science vessel, via the faction ships, I don't see it as unreasonable and selfish to ask for a pet class for the federation that could be comparable but at the same time more unique and geared towards federation strengths.
I do find it funny how defending the idea of a federation pet class has instantly labeled me pro federation and anti-Klingon. While I do understand the frustration with the lack Klingon content, I my self will also have to suffer along with you, that in no way should force a stop to the federation side development.
And you should agree, becasue when they do get around to doing the third faction, do you want them to stop making stuff for the Klingons and just move on, or do you want them to get updates as they go, with some thing for every one? I know which one I would choose.
Oh for the love of pete...really?!?!?!?!? *facepalm*
Why would the feds need a carrier? They are part of an organization of peaceful exploration...something that Kirk had to realize in ST VI. This is something that Archer promoted in Enterprise. This is also the case on multiple occasions when speaking to aliens in TNG episodes when they ask about the function of the Federation. Anyway...if you follow the line of thought, their ships would be ships of exploration with the ability to act as ships of the line. They do not have dedicated warships unless they are heavy cruisers. People in the federation are not like KDF people. They do not live solely to die for glory and honor for themselves and the empire. So why would the feds place officers in a deployable ship from a carrier made for war? It would be an obsolete ship once the war was over..It would be 'mothballed' after the war was over just like most of our navy was after the cold war ended....
So, why would the feds need a carrier? All the feds are promoting is a keeping up with the Jones'...to use a literary image. I know the klinks don't have a mid-sized sci vessel like feds do, so we have been asking for it..BOP is too squishy and a carrier aint for everybody. In reference to your statement about no KDF sci officers, then explain to me why in Enterprise when Phlox was kidnapped by a KDF team to work for a KDF scientist, he stated that there were sci officers...there aren't many of them he said, but they are there and try to do good work....I mean honestly, why would KDF people not have the same tech to a degree the feds have? They had peace for a number of years, and you know that people will sell tech to other factions especially during war. No honorable KDF member would sell carrier secrets to the feds, and even if they did, they would not build them because the fed councils and members would be appalled that the feds were building warships when they were told they were peaceful explorers who must defend themselves and such....???
I know I have rambled on long enough but ask yourself those questions, and try to justify a fed carrier....would you like a scout ship too like the BOP?...I mean really....
It does not matter if one's race are explorers or conquerers, neither is possible without those little guys in the white lab coats.
Since Star Fleet is an orginazation based from a race that survived a major, nearly extinction level, war world and have become a people of explorers, and only wage war out od neccassity, I see little reason that the feds would have a carrier. One of the standard Cruisers of the line could easily fulfill any such role if needed and I doubt that Star Fleet would put resources into fleet of warships, that they would ahev to hide from thier fellow federation memebrs mind you, out of fear of being seen as hyppcrits to thier peace-loving ways.
The fedration should continue to be designed along the ideals of its creation and pratice war only as a defensive necccasity to secure its way of live. The ships of the line should reflect this attitude.
The KDF should continue with its ideals of war, honor and conquest and their vessels of the line should reflect this idealogy as well.
When the Romulans come along thier vessels should reflect their particular ideals as well. I always envisioned the romies as the "Drow" of space persoanlly. Sneaky warriors with a decided flair for polictal two-stepping and intrigue. Thier vessels should reflect this.
No other faction is getting a carrier this was from cryptic themselves.
They will not be giving anyone else a carrier.
The carriers are the science ships of the KDF.
every other faction has a science ship.
NON have carriers.
Research it for yourself. Cryptic has always said no to any other faction getting a carrier.
This has always been the stance and always will be.
Personally I have no problem with a Federation ship that can carry fighters, even though it should indded be something different since the Klingon carriers are much more than just a platform for fighters, they are troop transports, mobile drydocks, command bases etc which explains their size.
So a Fed ship with fighters would be more like a makeshift carrier along the lines of stuffing a Galaxy with fighters instead of shuttles or a hull variant with larger shuttlebays etc.
However I'd like to politely point out that sentences like "Frankly the Klingons have too much of the federation abilities and classes." make me wonder whether you consider the Klingons to be blockheads because the density of scientist and engineers in the KDF my be lower than in Starfleet but who is going to maintain those ships of not the "Scottys and O'Briens with ridges"?
And sentences like:"I've never heard of a Klingon science office[...]" indicate you didn't do your research very well.
There was already a Science Officer aboard a D7 cruiser in the original series over 40 years ago.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Mara
There was also a very good example of a dedicated Klingon scientist in TNG:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Kurak
even though it is indicated it is not easy for her in the Empire since scientists are not regarded as highly as warriors.
But then again who knows the inventor of the invitro fertilization Robert Geoffrey Edwards?
Very few despite the fact he won the Nobel Prize this year.
But how many can instantly connect the name Michael Jordan with a face?
We're not that different from the Klingons when it comes to the social status of our scientists.
Finally, a feddie that has his head screwed on right...he as well says no to fed carriers. Well, I think he has his head screwed on right...I dunno, my time observing the feds has been limited as I do not have time to go to the zoo or on safari...JK....
I thought you were serious until I read that bit, but as I am sure you are aware that many sci abilities are frontal arc directional and the carrier is essentially a flying brick, it is now clear you are making a haha
Oh now I know you are a wit and a jokester of the highest order given how often Cryptic has done a 180 on issue after issue if people scream loud enough. :rolleyes:
Yup, people scream loud enough, that's how we get things changed on KDF side don't ye know?... lol. I do wish though that we'd put an end to the monkey see monkey do..Just because the borg have a cube doesn't mean that because it's there I can/should fly one too....Just because Remans have Scimitars in DSE's, does not mean everybody gets to fly one (maybe if we scream loud enough we will...lol).