test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

[Design Exercise] The Federation Interceptor Class

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
FEDERATION INTERCEPTOR CLASS
In the face of pandemic levels of piracy in the wake of the Long War, the need for moderately armed “fast responders” has never been greater. Able to protect vital shipping interests and react to sudden shifts along the Federation’s multiple combat frontlines, the Interceptor is a valuable addition to the Federation’s peacekeeping doctrine. A skilled pirate hunter, the Interceptor is able to safeguard several nearby locations simultaneously without requiring Starfleet to commit multiple vessels to the threatened region.

The Interceptor class features hanger space for armed shuttles (“gunships”) providing it with greater combat parity against both pirate factions and Klingon forces utilizing fighters. While not as numerous or as agile as enemy small craft, the more robust gunship can be seen as an effort to close the “carrier gap” while upholding the Federation principles of minimizing risk to our brave pilots and shuttle crews. With the Interceptor’s high speed and relatively small size, this ship class should not be seen as a direct challenge Klingon dominance in this field, but rather provides an unique counterpart to the empire’s fighter tactics. The inclusion of these gunship hangers does come at the cost of a stripped down weapons load aboard the interceptor itself – captains seeking assignment to ships of this class should not wade into battle with foolhardy abandon.

When deployed, each gunships draws a small portion of the ship’s crew and begins aggressively patrolling the area surrounding their launch rather than following their parent vessel. Gunship doctrine prioritizes targets smallest-to-largest, attacking mines and torpedoes first, fighters second, and progressively larger vessels in ascending order after smaller hazards are cleared. Carrying firepower comperable to a single torpedo tube and dual beam bank and sporting sensory masking 1, they threaten a roughly 6km-radius sphere around their deployment point. After a 1 minute sorte, the gunship then returns to the Interceptor at high speed to be recovered, repaired, and readied for redeployment. Higher ranked captains can look forward to progressivly larger gunships and eventually fielding 2 gunships simultaneously. Combined with the Interceptor’s considerable speed, this makes the total package excel at area denial while also being able to saturate critical locations with numerous low-grade threats. Combining gunship tactics with mines and/or warp plasma emissions, the Interceptor class should be able to drive off raiders of all sorts while protecting Federation assets and allies.

While favoring aggressive tactics, the Interceptor class should not be mistaken for (or flown as) an Escort vessel. Interceptors lack the Escort’s massive forward punch. The lack of cannon-based weaponry makes Interceptor “jousting” a very different proposition requiring a unique mix of skills and tactics. This diversity should attract captains who are looking for a different role in larger fleet operations and present new challenges to the Federation’s enemies.

-General Performance Profile-
Hull Strength – Directly comparable to Science vessels of equal tier (lowest values in the Federation arsenal).
Turn Rate – Roughly splits the difference between Escort and Science vessels. High inertia values support 'fast attack' passes and sprinting to place fixed-position weapons (gunships/mines/plasma).
Crew – Roughly splits the difference between Escort and Science vessels, but must also be used to “pay” for launching gunships.
Officers – Strong Engineering component, but greater secondary emphasis on diverse Tactical skill use.
Weapons Types (front) – Beams and Torpedoes only (no cannons)
Weapons Types (rear) – Beams, Mines, and Torpedoes only (no turrets)
Power Distribution Bonus – Engine +15
Device Slots – 2
Special Active Ability – Launch Gunship. The gunship is an armored and shielded pet with the sensor masking 1 ability and a rank-appropriate forward facing torpedo tube and dual beam bank, each with a maximum range of 5 km. Their hull and shield values make them many times tougher than comperable fighters, scaling up as rank and number of crew required to launch increases (10 crew = x4, 15 crew = x6, 20 crew = x8). The gunship will patrol a space roughly 3km across centered on where it was deployed. However, the Interceptor class has fewer standard weapon slots than any other Federation ship at each tier. If gunships are counted as 1 weapon slot each, then the total number of slots is comparable to the Escort class.
Special Passive Ability – +33% recharge rate for Evasive Maneuvers skill. However, the interceptor class has 1 less console than normal for Federation ships at each tier.

“Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 13,000/75
Turn Rate: 13 d/s (inertia 70)
Weapons: 2 Front, 1 Rear. May deploy 1 gunship (draws 10 crew).
Officers: Engineering Lieutenant, Science Ensign, Tactical Ensign, Tactical Ensign
Consoles: 1 Engineering, 1 Science, 1 Tactical (4th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)

“Patrol Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 18,000/225
Turn Rate: 12 d/s (inertia 60)
Weapons: 3 Front, 1 Rear. May deploy 1 gunship (draws 15 crew).
Officers: Engineering Lt Commander, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lieutenant, Tactical Ensign
Consoles: 2 Engineering, 1 Science, 1 Tactical (5th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)

“Pursuit Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 23,000/150
Turn Rate: 12 d/s (inertia 65)
Weapons: 3 Front, 1 Rear. May deploy 2 gunships (draws 15 crew each).
Officers: Engineering Commander, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lieutenant, Tactical Lieutenant
Consoles: 2 Engineering, 2 Science, 2 Tactical (7th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)

“Strike Interceptor”
Hull/Crew: 27,000/240
Turn Rate: 11 d/s (inertia 70)
Weapons: 3 Front, 2 Rear. May deploy 2 gunships (draws 20 crew each).
Officers: Engineering Commander, Engineering Ensign, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lt. Commander, Tactical Lieutenant
Consoles: 3 Engineering, 2 Science, 3 Tactical (9th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    the weak will perish
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    To be honest when I saw Interceptor in the title I though it would be more of a counterpart to the BoP. Also since the klingon carrier is only available at tier 5 why would the fed counterpart get a ship at each tier?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Gatness wrote: »
    To be honest when I saw Interceptor in the title I though it would be more of a counterpart to the BoP. Also since the klingon carrier is only available at tier 5 why would the fed counterpart get a ship at each tier?

    I would have no objection to the Interceptor only comming available at tier 5 or the Klingon Carrier being iterated to create lower-tier versions. Personally I think the Klingons should get carriers at all tiers so that players may develope their skills using them in a more gradual fashion.

    I just did the math for Interceptors at all the tiers to see if the concept would rank up in a smooth/sensible fasion :).

    In some ways it is a counterpart to the BoP, as its a fast and fragile ship. It just has a carrier-like shtick. I was inspired by some discussion in another thread of the extreme speed values some ships can generate to zip out of weapons range after their firing pass. Couple that with a ship good at dropping mines and such in its wake and you could have a very fun playstyle seperate from the current escort line. It seemed fun to create "pocket-carriers" instead of stealing the Klingon's "super-carrier" thunder.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Its an interesting Idea to be sure hough I'm honestly not sure why the weapons should be limited. I mean sure cut cannons (duals at any rate) but preventing players from putting anything but mines and torps in the rear slots just seems a little limiting, plus with the low(er than escort or Bop) turn rate it would mean they have a very obvious and very exploitable weak point in pvp since any Bop or escort could keep up with the interceptor long enough to kill them if they have a half decent pilot. It may certainly make for an interesting play style but since so much of this game is about customisation limiting the players in something as basic a weapon choice just seems like a bad idea imo.

    as for multiple tIers, I've said it before with the klingon carrier, I wouldn't start it any lower than tier 3 personally, all the ships before that seem to small to work for a carrier type ship. Also I can't really see a carrier type being given to anyone below commander rank. It still gives players time to develop skills for the type without the command of such a ship seeming implausible.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Gatness wrote: »
    Its an interesting Idea to be sure hough I'm honestly not sure why the weapons should be limited.

    One of my goals was to create strong differentiation from escorts. Since escorts are almost entirely defined by their ability to mount cannons, making an alternative fast attack ship class cannon-free seemed a good approach.
    I mean sure cut cannons (duals at any rate) but preventing players from putting anything but mines and torps in the rear slots just seems a little limiting, plus with the low(er than escort or Bop) turn rate it would mean they have a very obvious and very exploitable weak point in pvp since any Bop or escort could keep up with the interceptor long enough to kill them if they have a half decent pilot. It may certainly make for an interesting play style but since so much of this game is about customisation limiting the players in something as basic a weapon choice just seems like a bad idea imo.

    Fair point. I'm more concerned with people mounting turrets in the rear slots to maximize frontal firepower, than I am with people having some rear-guard options. Allowing beams in the rear arc, but still prohibting turrets (a form of cannon weapon) is probably a more uniform implementation that still meets my primary goal. Changes made to initial post :). The weapon restrictions can now be summarized as "no cannons, period."
    as for multiple tIers, I've said it before with the klingon carrier, I wouldn't start it any lower than tier 3 personally, all the ships before that seem to small to work for a carrier type ship. Also I can't really see a carrier type being given to anyone below commander rank. It still gives players time to develop skills for the type without the command of such a ship seeming implausible.

    That seems an equitable compromise.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    NikeOnline wrote: »
    FEDERATION INTERCEPTOR CLASS
    “Strike Interceptor”
    Hull/Crew: 27,000/240
    Turn Rate: 11 d/s (inertia 70)
    Weapons: 3 Front, 2 Rear. May deploy 2 gunships (draws 20 crew each).
    Officers: Engineering Commander, Engineering Ensign, Science Lieutenant, Tactical Lt. Commander, Tactical Lieutenant
    Consoles: 3 Engineering, 2 Science, 3 Tactical (9th slot is given up for Evasion recharge bonus)

    I would say create two versions of the T5 one. This one and one that has 6 weapons slots (3 for 3 aft) and give it supportive abilities/bonuses. Cut its turn to 6, up its hull/shields a bit, give it bonuses (sizable ones) to utilizing mines (IE when deploying mines, they have damage incresed to 50% and one extra deployment and CD reduced by half, not doable for tricobalt)

    The game desperatly needs a reason for mines and having to actually deal with them, instead of just plowing though them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Paneth wrote:
    I would say create two versions of the T5 one. This one and one that has 6 weapons slots (3 for 3 aft) and give it supportive abilities/bonuses. Cut its turn to 6, up its hull/shields a bit, give it bonuses (sizable ones) to utilizing mines (IE when deploying mines, they have damage incresed to 50% and one extra deployment and CD reduced by half, not doable for tricobalt)

    The game desperatly needs a reason for mines and having to actually deal with them, instead of just plowing though them.

    I'm a big fan of mine use, so I feel ya. I had originally considered making the Interceptor line's passive ability an increased recharge rate on mine laying skills, but that seemed to lock in the weapons choices a little too tightly given the other themes being served by this ship line. As it stands the extra low-ranked Tactical slots should work well for mixing both energy and kinetic skills- you could have your beam punch AND mine laying patterns on your skill bar.

    I'll script up a dedicated tier 5 mine-layer using the patterns underlying existing Federation ships and see if a Federation "interdictor" tickles your fancy. Its a play style I enjoy too. While a mine-damage buff is attractive, I think a buff to mine weapon recharge rates (and possibly a dispersal pattern skill built-in) would better represent a dedicated mine layer - fill more space more often. Mine-layer designs would also benefits from strong secondary Science skills to perform shield drains on ships trying to navigate the obstacle course you've laid out for them :D.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Not bad, but old SFB ideas of "police" cruisers work better. A thinly veiled attempt at fed carriers. Don't get me wrong, I support them. I wonder though if the old Traveller RPG "battle tender" idea wouldn't work better. (I'm also thinking of mobile dry-docks being the combat result of such design).

    I'd support your idea if I could pilot the "Last of the V-8 Interceptors".

    Also just wiki that phrase. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    maina wrote: »
    Not bad, but old SFB ideas of "police" cruisers work better.

    I'm not familiar with those. Could you explain?
    A thinly veiled attempt at fed carriers.

    Not veiled at all :). Just an attempt to create carriers that are A) strongly distinct from the Klingon's 'Hulking Brute' style of carrier and B) by focuing on a small number of tougher "pets" making them more in keeping with Federation mentality/doctrine. We don't see much of Federation single-seater fighters in the canon sources (outside of training exercises) but we DO see runabouts and other beefed-up shuttles occasionally screening for capital ships. The "gunship" is a nod to that behavior.
    Don't get me wrong, I support them. I wonder though if the old Traveller RPG "battle tender" idea wouldn't work better. (I'm also thinking of mobile dry-docks being the combat result of such design).

    Mulling over fleet tenders I keep comming back to one basic idea: a LONG cooldown ability to drop a "triage/repair platform" that acts as a new spawn point for that side. Once placed, any time a ship on that side is destroyed it gets the choice of respawning at the map spawn point, or at the nearest friendly platform. It basically lets you secure progress as you advance across a map and creates new objectives for the enemy to destroy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Silly idea, its just a super hyped up Escort. This is what the game does not need.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Silly idea, its just a super hyped up Escort. This is what the game does not need.

    Um, with lower hull value, slower turn rate, fewer weapons, fewer consoles and no access to cannons, by what metric do you see them as "super hyped up Escorts"? The only thing thing they share directly with Escorts is inertia, and they typically have about 50% more crew at the same tier. They have the same number of Boff abilites as ALL Fed ships have at each tier, just distributed slightly differently.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    the problem i see is these ships would be zero threat to kdf carriers, they are small enough for a carrier or its fighters to easily destroy, combined firepower along with the carrier being the most heavily armored and shielded ship in the game, well theres no way these fed psuedo carriers are going to help. the best counter to the carrier is using science one 2 punches like charge burst and shockwave, along with cruisers carrying fire at will to keep the skys fairly clear of fighters.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    NikeOnline wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with those. Could you explain?

    No warp drive. Stationed as system defense and "interceptor" classes. There is no "canon" to support them. They were part of a universe that expanded before most current posters here even watched a episode. Doesn't count though.



    Not veiled at all :). Just an attempt to create carriers that are A) strongly distinct from the Klingon's 'Hulking Brute' style of carrier and B) by focuing on a small number of tougher "pets" making them more in keeping with Federation mentality/doctrine. We don't see much of Federation single-seater fighters in the canon sources (outside of training exercises) but we DO see runabouts and other beefed-up shuttles occasionally screening for capital ships. The "gunship" is a nod to that behavior.

    We see fighters in DS9. The problem is no carriers. The idea for them has been in trek "soft cannon" long before most posters. They grew up on a single series and view all others based on the single one the saw.



    Mulling over fleet tenders I keep comming back to one basic idea: a LONG cooldown ability to drop a "triage/repair platform" that acts as a new spawn point for that side. Once placed, any time a ship on that side is destroyed it gets the choice of respawning at the map spawn point, or at the nearest friendly platform. It basically lets you secure progress as you advance across a map and creates new objectives for the enemy to destroy.


    There is no reason not to have a carrier idea in ST, except, we haven't seen one in someones series.


    I say your idea is ok. Though it's just one type of a scenario for carriers. Most think it won't work for feds because it's a tactically bad idea. Lol, stupid Klingons. I mean really, why are they a threat if such a bad idea won't work?

    Not a federation style? BS. Who the heck will overlook a strategic element? Works for Klingons, works for Feds.

    Let me add, this is a multi front war, Your peace loving, immersion, cannon TRIBBLE doesn't work. One or two encounters with Klingon carriers and......
    Hudson wrote:
    Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events; but we just got our asses kicked, pal!

    You don't think the FED adapts or learns?

    One More Edit. To the OP. Only the red in your quote is directed at you. The rest is a general rant against the others.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    KhansWrath wrote:
    the problem i see is these ships would be zero threat to kdf carriers, they are small enough for a carrier or its fighters to easily destroy, combined firepower along with the carrier being the most heavily armored and shielded ship in the game, well theres no way these fed psuedo carriers are going to help.

    My thinking was the interceptors are still at least as tough as a Science ship and with their Engine power bonus, naturally high inertia value, and quick-charging Evasive Manuevers they should be harder to score hits on than any Science ship. They also have fewer but better Engineering skills available which should add to survivability (at the cost of Science's many devastating tricks). Better/deeper Tactical seating would also help them leverage their weapon slots compared to a Science ship. Are Science ships getting creamed that badly in match-ups with carriers?
    the best counter to the carrier is using science one 2 punches like charge burst and shockwave, along with cruisers carrying fire at will to keep the skys fairly clear of fighters.

    Actually I thought the gunboats would be directly analagous to having two "Fire at Will" effects running since once you drop them they're going to start hunting fighters to extinction before turning on the carrier (at least until mama carrier decides to blow them up :rolleyes:). I think it would be possible to set gunboat hull/shields/weaponry to a level where you could see an interesting match against a Klingon Carrier given similar operator experience and gear.

    Ideally the balance point should be interesting match-ups, rather than dominating or getting facerolled :).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Actually, to make sure Interceptors are also distinct from Science vessels, I've made two small adjustments - reduced the number of device slots to 2 and shifted the power distribution bonus to +15 to Engines.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    From: Adirmal Jonathon Stipe
    CC: Starfleet Corp of Engineers

    As the lead designer on Project MADAM I have insight into the desing process as well as the needs of the Federation. Having reviewd the enclosed schematics at some length I feel I can comment here. The ship idea itself is of value and of interest. While i whole heartedly believed that Federation Dreadnaugth or Carrier was not the answer to the "Klingon Problem" I do value the need for small, highly mobile attack craft to combat the fighters we so commonly face. However, the expected loss of life in such fighters is in contradiction to normal Starfleet standards. Until now. MADAM has the capabilites to repair these ships on the fly keeping them up and thier pilots alive. Even without MADAM this ship has merit. However, some design changes are needed.

    First she is not an escort. She lack "guns" but makes up for that with speed and her "gunboats". This ship needs to run along standard science vessel lines. She is smaller which is why she is faster. However, to make room for the Gunboats someting has to compromised. I noted that rear mounted mine and torpedo tubes. Those take up way to much room and such a small ship. I would propose instead phaser beam turrets be monted on the top and bottom of the primary sacuer. Give her true 360 degree combat effectivness. The front mounted weapons banks are fine. By making this move you can do two things. Increase the structural integrity of the ship by 20% and allow for another birth for a gunboat.

    Having recieved your desings my Engineers set to work on some modifications to the gunships. These are extremely vulnerable and few in numbers. In a large fire fight they may be picked off easily. However, my engineers have found a way to minaturize the emitters needed to mask the ion trails of these ships. Making them much harder to track and taget (read they have mask energy signature 1 built in as well as jam sensors) In addition each can be equipped with dual phaser beam banks as well as a rear mounted turet on the back. These ships will be able to put a halt on Orion pirates as well as hold thier own in a major firefight. With a carrier fighters neutralized by these hit and run gunboats they will quickly find themsleves dealing with a warp core breach.

    I hope you find these design modificatinos usefull.

    Sincrely Vice Admiral jonathon Stipe
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    At the moment I am reluctant to give them weapons/slots with 360 degree firing arcs, A) because it will again make them overly simliar to standard Escort layouts and B) because I do not with to introduce a third unique ability to a single ship line. The variables for achieving good balance vs. existing options get way out of hand. Most of these numbers are closely derived from existing ship values and too many new widgets actually dilutes the appeal of their core shtick - fast pocket carrier. What I would really like is to see some folks explore how they would equip such ships and train their bridge crews to fly inteceptors as they stand now if they were part of the available choices...

    Since the Gunboats are envisioned as an alterntive to a single standard weapon slot, and are expected to work somewhat like the Fire at Wlll skill or even be compared with the pre-order point defense turret, I don't neccessarily want to give them firepower substantially greater than a single on-level weapon (likely comparing to a dual beam bank). Howerver, they are vulnerable to direct attack so making them somewhat resistent to casual destruction is fair both mechanically and for in-setting reasons. I like the addition of sensor masking to their independent skills.

    Once the gunboats are tweaked, I can see a modest (+5% to +10%) increase to hull strength to improve differentiation from Science vessels, but the core of their survivability should be coming from their speed. Used skillfully, I don't know that they should need much more hull to hold their own in PvE and contribute to PvP. And in the intrests of balance any advantage not needed should be pared down to the minimum to focus attention on what they do well.

    I have updated the original post both in flavor text and in the general profile to incorperate your suggestion and to better explain my expectations for the Launch Gunship ability.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Sounds like a T5 Excelsior with a weaker hull and a launchable pet. Why not just fly an Excelsior in that case?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Ideally a federation 'carrier/interceptor' should use the same materials already in the game, IE the fighters. I suggested back when this was biggish in the beta that they create a light carrier. Essentially a nerfed science ship with 2 pets. The science ship would loose some a console and some crew in exchange for the pets.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I am going to break character because some of the things I have to say just won't work.

    I like the idea and conept of this ship. I would fly one. However, the "gunships" are way underpowered as currently implemented. Pets work in either two fashions. They are really strong ie the carriers BOP or there are a ton of them. Currnelty this has neither. Your starting point is excellant. Given the small size of the ship you have to go with strong. Realize this is the Federation and sending peope to die is not an easy thing for Starfleet Captain to do. They won't do it unless its unavoidable or they can increase the odds of survival. With the limited numbers of "gunships" you have to find a way to improved survivability. I tried to give it survivability by incorporating both a mask energy signature and a jam sesnsor power. I think those are the bare minimum that needs to be added. The rear mounted turret is also a nice additon and not really overpowering but we can debate that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Sounds like a T5 Excelsior with a weaker hull and a launchable pet. Why not just fly an Excelsior in that case?

    'Cause its more nimble and it has pets. I LIKE pets and I like going fast, so its more entertaining (to me) than an Excelsior in every way :).

    (though since I also enjoy single-cannon based cruisers, the Exclesior's Lt Cmdr tac seat IS calling to me. Just not to the tune of 1200 points... yet.)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Blitzy wrote:
    Ideally a federation 'carrier/interceptor' should use the same materials already in the game, IE the fighters.

    Well, this is mostly an exercise in game balance - if it actually came to scavenging graphical assets to make it playable on LIVe, I'd assume the gunships would steal the appearance of the runabouts, though possibly scaled up about 50%.

    I keep thinking the T5 would look a lot like the Dauntless (yes, I know that's not actually a Federation ship). I just like the sharply pointed saucers for ships that 'go fast'. An updated Yeager would be cool for the tier 2 or 3.
    I suggested back when this was biggish in the beta that they create a light carrier. Essentially a nerfed science ship with 2 pets. The science ship would loose some a console and some crew in exchange for the pets.

    Sounds like we're basically on the same page after starting from different places. That's a good sign.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I am going to break character because some of the things I have to say just won't work.

    I like the idea and conept of this ship. I would fly one. However, the "gunships" are way underpowered as currently implemented. Pets work in either two fashions. They are really strong ie the carriers BOP or there are a ton of them. Currnelty this has neither. Your starting point is excellant. Given the small size of the ship you have to go with strong. Realize this is the Federation and sending peope to die is not an easy thing for Starfleet Captain to do. They won't do it unless its unavoidable or they can increase the odds of survival. With the limited numbers of "gunships" you have to find a way to improved survivability. I tried to give it survivability by incorporating both a mask energy signature and a jam sesnsor power. I think those are the bare minimum that needs to be added. The rear mounted turret is also a nice additon and not really overpowering but we can debate that.

    I'm looking into the peformance of the Klingon fighters now. My intital expectatin is being borne out - while I don't want to heavily upgrade the firepower of the gunships since they are balanced around the idea of "worth a weapon slot", I did want them to have the shields and hull to be basically 5-8 times as hard to kill as a fighter (scaling up with the number of crew being drawn). Seeing as how a single flight of fighters includes 4 fighters, making a gunship 8 times as tough actually fits pretty well. Killing gunships should be an option, not the no-brainer solution to beating an interceptor engagement. If they were to still be getting habitually smashed first by enemies, then adding a jam sensors skill would be a good step toward tweaking them further. Unfortunately we'll never see them in playtest to make that sort of fine adjustment ;).

    The other thing I'm seeing is fighters (and Terran runabouts) do mount a torpedo launcher. Adding a torpedo launcher to the gunboats is probably fair - on the basis the gunboat doesn't have skills to amplify their weapon's effectiveness, while a weapon slot aboard the Interceptor would benefit from such effects. I'll update the intial post with these thoughts.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    NikeOnline wrote: »
    I'm looking into the peformance of the Klingon fighters now. My intital expectatin is being borne out - while I don't want to heavily upgrade the firepower of the gunships since they are balanced around the idea of "worth a weapon slot", I did want them to have the shields and hull to be basically 5-8 times as hard to kill as a fighter (scaling up with the number of crew being drawn). Seeing as how a single flight of fighters includes 4 fighters, making a gunship 8 times as tough actually fits pretty well. Killing gunships should be an option, not the no-brainer solution to beating an interceptor engagement. If they were to still be getting habitually smashed first by enemies, then adding a jam sensors skill would be a good step toward tweaking them further. Unfortunately we'll never see them in playtest to make that sort of fine adjustment ;).

    The other thing I'm seeing is fighters (and Terran runabouts) do mount a torpedo launcher. Adding a torpedo launcher to the gunboats is probably fair - on the basis the gunboat doesn't have skills to amplify their weapon's effectiveness, while a weapon slot aboard the Interceptor would benefit from such effects. I'll update the intial post with these thoughts.


    Excellant I shall contineu to monitor.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I like the idea of a ship surviving based on speed and pets. This is a very good idea.

    I think your line of thinking on the mines/torps in the rear is to dissuade someone from following the ship, allowing it to get out of range. I know a turret doesn't really allow that.

    A change I would make is to make the um... forgot the word... well, fighters be out of the ship perpetually (ie. you launch them and they don't come back) or they stay out for 5 ish minutes each. That way you don't have the long build up a carrier does to get the firepower out.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Something you might try Nike, fire off a PM to one of the system or content designers asking what they think, maybe even suggest they put a mock up together for their internal server if they can find the time to see if the concept hold water in game. they wouldn't need all new art assets and such to do so, just throw in an escort, code the basic stats and add a button to launch runabouts with approximate stats for your gunships. A mockup like that at least in my mind doesn't sound like it would take long, a few hours to a day maybe. Hell they may even like the idea enough to send it further up the chain of command.

    Course they may just ignore the PM, or it could take longer than I would think and never gets looked at past the idea on paper. Still its a thought you might attempt.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Gatness wrote: »
    Something you might try Nike, fire off a PM to one of the system or content designers asking what they think, maybe even suggest they put a mock up together for their internal server if they can find the time to see if the concept hold water in game. they wouldn't need all new art assets and such to do so, just throw in an escort, code the basic stats and add a button to launch runabouts with approximate stats for your gunships. A mockup like that at least in my mind doesn't sound like it would take long, a few hours to a day maybe. Hell they may even like the idea enough to send it further up the chain of command.

    Course they may just ignore the PM, or it could take longer than I would think and never gets looked at past the idea on paper. Still its a thought you might attempt.

    Posts like this make me wish we had a "like" button
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Gatness wrote: »
    Something you might try Nike, fire off a PM to one of the system or content designers asking what they think.

    I did send a note to Dstahl, but I'm sure he gets pestered a lot. I don't know who the correct Dev is for ship combat/ship concepts, but if I find out I'd be happy to ping them also :).
    maybe even suggest they put a mock up together for their internal server if they can find the time to see if the concept hold water in game. they wouldn't need all new art assets and such to do so, just throw in an escort, code the basic stats and add a button to launch runabouts with approximate stats for your gunships. A mockup like that at least in my mind doesn't sound like it would take long, a few hours to a day maybe. Hell they may even like the idea enough to send it further up the chain of command.

    Actually my goals for this round are a lot more modest - some designer feedback on where and how the Interceptor line's stats do not fit with their design philosophies and maybe suggestions on how to better format ship proposals in the future. That will help me refine future efforts.
    Course they may just ignore the PM, or it could take longer than I would think and never gets looked at past the idea on paper. Still its a thought you might attempt.

    In the interim I would really like for folks who enjoy this concept to suggest how they would train their bridge offices to run one, and how they might arm and equip the ship to maximize it's strengths.

    For example I see polarized hull as a must since getting snared by a tractor beam would cripple the defensive strengths of being able to run away. I'm also curious how people might leverage the unique arangment of many lower level tactical ability slots. I had hoped that they might be able to mix some lower rank beam and mine skills...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Personally for the tier 5 BO layout you proposed I'd use omega 1 rather than polarise hull for tractor evasion since it would also allow for speed and manoeuvrability boost along with a little damage increase. I'd likely have two copies of HYT 2 and use the ensign tac slots for Beam overload, or have a rank 1 and 2 of each skill. possibly swap out one or both Beam overloads for fire at will.

    For engineering, ET 1 x2, EPtW2, EPtS3 and either Sif 3 or EWP 3. might swap one of the emergency power skills for inertial dampeners, I've come to really love that skill on my cruisers and with its speed and turn boost it would fit the concept well I think.

    Science I would fiddle with but the ensign slot at least would have HE 1.

    I'd have a beam array and torpedos at both fore and aft and probably put the breen cluster topedo in the front as well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2011
    NikeOnline wrote: »
    Mulling over fleet tenders I keep comming back to one basic idea: a LONG cooldown ability to drop a "triage/repair platform" that acts as a new spawn point for that side. Once placed, any time a ship on that side is destroyed it gets the choice of respawning at the map spawn point, or at the nearest friendly platform. It basically lets you secure progress as you advance across a map and creates new objectives for the enemy to destroy.

    In light of the new Klingon ship with this ability, I at least managed to think a little like a Dev :).
Sign In or Register to comment.