test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Removing Carriers - What would you do instead?
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I hate Carriers. Not because theyare OP. Or UP. Or perfectly balanced. Or because they are are ugly and fat. Or because they cause targeting spam. Or because they cause lag. All that isn't really my issue.
I just don't like them because this is Startrek, not Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica (TOS or TNS) or Space Above And Beyond or Babylon 5. All perfeclty fine franchises I dearly love (well, Space Above and Beyond didn't really become a franchise) and enjoyed and are not Startrek. They don't fit into the Startrek "aesthetics" of space combat, and all canon evidence suggests that Fighters pack neither considerable punch nor survivability and are only used as last ressort when you want to throw everything in you got. They just aren't effective.
This is a purely theoretical idea. I don't think this will ever happen. Don't worry about that. No one listens to me anyway.
But let's pretend for a moment that Cryptic and CBS suddenly realize that fighters and Carriers don't really make much sense in Startrek, do not fit established canon, and they got a cease and desist letter from George Lucas and Glen A. Larson reminding us that they share an exclusive patent on WW2 style warfare in space.
What would you do? You can't just rip out 2 end-game ships and existing art assets and play styles and give nothing in return. This would lead to murder and mayhem.
So, what would you do? What kind of ship class would you come up with? What would you do with the existing Carrier models? How can they be reused?
I might turn Carriers into Cruisers. Or Science Vessels. But a slow-turning science vessel kinda sucks, doesn't it? So it might need a special trick. Maybe 7-8 weapon slots instead of 6 could do that? Maybe they could turn into mine layers (as I said, targeting spam, lag, not my problem, and I assume not part of the patent of Lucas and Larson either). The "old" bays are turned into mine layers. Maybe we could create new special types of mines, say, self-replicating cloaked mines or some such?
Or maybe they could all be equipped with "Disruptor Spears"?
I just don't like them because this is Startrek, not Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica (TOS or TNS) or Space Above And Beyond or Babylon 5. All perfeclty fine franchises I dearly love (well, Space Above and Beyond didn't really become a franchise) and enjoyed and are not Startrek. They don't fit into the Startrek "aesthetics" of space combat, and all canon evidence suggests that Fighters pack neither considerable punch nor survivability and are only used as last ressort when you want to throw everything in you got. They just aren't effective.
This is a purely theoretical idea. I don't think this will ever happen. Don't worry about that. No one listens to me anyway.
But let's pretend for a moment that Cryptic and CBS suddenly realize that fighters and Carriers don't really make much sense in Startrek, do not fit established canon, and they got a cease and desist letter from George Lucas and Glen A. Larson reminding us that they share an exclusive patent on WW2 style warfare in space.
What would you do? You can't just rip out 2 end-game ships and existing art assets and play styles and give nothing in return. This would lead to murder and mayhem.
So, what would you do? What kind of ship class would you come up with? What would you do with the existing Carrier models? How can they be reused?
I might turn Carriers into Cruisers. Or Science Vessels. But a slow-turning science vessel kinda sucks, doesn't it? So it might need a special trick. Maybe 7-8 weapon slots instead of 6 could do that? Maybe they could turn into mine layers (as I said, targeting spam, lag, not my problem, and I assume not part of the patent of Lucas and Larson either). The "old" bays are turned into mine layers. Maybe we could create new special types of mines, say, self-replicating cloaked mines or some such?
Or maybe they could all be equipped with "Disruptor Spears"?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Mines are, essentially, boring. They're ugly, stupid and have no personality whatsoever. They're also massively vulnerable to aoe weaponry, and chroniton/tricobalt apart they suck.
Things that could be done if fighters aren't your cup of tea:
- drone carriers. Not especially klingon-y, but if it's purely the idea of fighters then that would avoid the basic concept. (this would make more sense for a non-klingon/non-federation race)
- turret deployers. Personally, this is more a "Federation thing".
- torpedo boat. Oft-discussed, and hard to see how it would be balanced.
- saucer-separation-style thingy. Somehow part of the ship snaps off?
- a command & control ship.
Personally, I have more trouble accepting the escort-class than I do the carriers.
Edit: something that wouldn't solve the issue, but would be interesting - give carrier pilots an RTS style view of the battle, and make them more 'admirals' than captains. [probably impractical though]
There'd be no reason for the ship to be huge anymore though, since it doesn't carry wings of fighters, BoPs, and/or frigates. So they could both be reduced in size, crew size reduced, and turn rate boosted.
Although, come to think of it, I'd rather see this idea go to the Feds. An AoE self defense turret is sort of like flak, anti-fighter. Meanwhile, the shield buffing, tractors and repulsors and such fit with the Federation love of modifying deflector dishes. It'd be kind of cool, a Federation counterpart for carriers, but not carriers.
Still, a drone might work for another reason - the original intention might not have been warfare. I could see Starfleet or the KLingons use Drone Carriers for an entirely different purpose - charting star systems and sectors, sending out probes. And in war, well, the carriers themselves don't have much internal space reserved for weapons. Building some drones with phasers beams or cannons and putting them aboard might be simpler then trying to rip out drone launch bays to make space for more guns.
Possibly another thing more interesting for PvP only, like, say, the Nebula's Detection Grid. (No NPCs worth it ever cloak.)
What would this entail, mechanically?
In theory, I am not opposed to pets, as long as they are not fighters. Maybe a C&C ship would have a "pet fleet"? Or would it just give buffs to allies (so not so great for solo PvE).
I think Escorts make some sense in Startrek, if you consider that most ships are really only that big because they carry a ton of research equipment, crew, medical bays, empty space, and vast cargo bays for the variety of missions they do and for the long-range engagements they have. Escorts are basically stripped of everything not crucial for a combat situation. They won't go out and explore the galaxy and find new civilizations for a long time. The crew would be out of non-replicatable resources quickly, and get mad at the tight quarters, and any serious injury to a crewman would either incapcitate or kill him due to the lack of medical facilities. But the Escorts are as close as you can get to "fighter jets" in Startrek. Anything smaller can't pack the necessary energy supply for powerful shields, engines and weapons. At least that's how it seems, since the Defiant seemed to work fine in DS9, but the Runabouts and Peregrines didn't really.
I really hope that something like this might one day come, as the future for our "Fleet Admirals".
It pains me that the former Klingon flagship has become something that is no larger and no better than an ordinary battlecruiser, even going so far as to being more nimble than its Federation counterparts just so it can align its poor standard cannons rather than forcing an enemy to avoid the NV's front because it would be devastating to be hit by a full volley.
I go into more detail concerning my version of the NV here.
I'm curiuos, How does one patent such a thing?
As for replacing the carrier, I can not say. I imagine we would just have a void until such time as the Devs design another vessel to fill it.
I can also only assume that the "cries of _______" would begin anew regardless of what the Devs create.
If the other side has it, it must be OP. Hence Science Vessels are OP Fed ships, and BoPs and Carriers are OP Klink ships. Fear what you don't know.
What kind of ship ideas do you still see for STO?
Maybe the Carriers could be turned into some kind of "Anti-BOP". Not fast, nimble and fragile, but slow, clumsy and tough, but also with generic bridge officer slots.
In theory a drone would be 'cheap':
- no internal space required, so it's a hell of a lot smaller.
- no life support, so substantially less complex.
- no backup systems - if it gets damaged, it crashes, no crew recovery/emergency panels etc.
- no crew training costs, replacements when ill/dead etc.
- less rigorous maintenance.
Drones are usually highly cost-effective, and it could be argued the same here.
Yep, alternatively, there might be a foe where drones would be especially useful (an enemy that uses a huge numbers of their own drones? or maybe a gaseous-style entity? ...). Either works for me.
Maybe in PvE it summons ships, and in PvP it instead focuses more on buffing friendly ships? Lots of possible options I guess, good to see ideas floated
Personally I just think trek was more unique before creating the defiant.
I don't think everyone would enjoy an RTS-style interface, and I suspect it's a huge amount of work.
Well, not everyone likes ground combat, and we still got it. But I tend to agree that it should not be a forced part of the game, at least no more forced then the ability to play Carriers forces people to play Carriers.
Well, you might have a point there. But I like the Defiant, so there.
Carriers and Star Trek and carriers in don't fit really well.
Aside from the in this regard odd game Star Fleet Battles, carriers are not really connected to Star Trek.
I don't really see the current Klingon carrier (I mean the Vo'Quv and the Vod'leh, not the captured tingy) as carriers in the sense they are used in this game.
They are more like mobile outposts with service equipment for smaller ships that would otherwise not be able to function far away from home space.
It's not a carrier in the sense of the WW2 and beyond carriers mentioned above that its purpose is to move into an area and launch fighters that then go at the enemy.
When we go after the original description given before STO was released,
http://www.incgamers.com/News/17624/
it's quite the opposite:
These ships would be too precious to be put into battle in the first place.
Noone would be foolish enough to send a drydock into battle either!
If anything they should be renamed "mobile command post" and used in a future territory control PvP game as a counterpart to small Federation outposts, like this:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050530070620/memoryalpha/en/images/2/26/Starbase_375_with_ships.jpg
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070308033715/memoryalpha/en/images/6/66/Starbase_375_docking_bay.jpg
The Klingon ship could have different properties, like to ability to move in combat and no need to ferry its parts to the front and then assemble it there.
But otherwise it should be basically something you protect because it's expesive and far too vulnerable for the resources you put into building it and moving it close to the front.
Since it's supposed to carry ground-troops, it could also be used as a plot-device in a mission where you need to escort it into rang of a planet where it can then launch a host of assault shuttles (for which the model used for the Klingon pet-Runabout counterpart could be used).
Not every ship has to be useful in every situation. The less frequent you'd encounter a beast such as this, the more you would think "omigawd awesome!" if you finally happen to end up in a PUG PvP and notice there's that huge beast moving into the battle next to you. Just like the Negh'var did in DS9.
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=3018092&postcount=80
(note: as it turned out the designation "Metaphasic Shielding" was given to the invulnerability shield seen on some NPC ships, so it would have to be called something else or replaced by something completely different because we now have the Aegis shield craftable)
I dont really think I'd want to fly a smaller ship, I would probably just wind up hittin a more tactical role in a cruiser. I've always liked big bloated warthogs of heaping space hulks. It wouldnt have to be a carrier, but I'd like something just as big to take its place.
I understand some really do dispise the carrier, yet...really.....why is that again exactly? i do think the Feds should have an equivalent to the carrier.
Still may not happen...ever.
It's really just that they don't fit in my Startrek.
As I said, I doubt it would ever happen anyway. You can't just take stuff away from players like that.
I know, Mine was "from the cheap seats" post that got by quality control.
You can just snatch things from players though. Its easy, just not smart. and the crying starts up, parent companies get involved and the whole thing goes south from there.
Why can't the feds just get a usable version of teh Typhoon?
Though I'd love to see that ship as a costume...
STO ship classification is really messed up. If we're already in dreamland, let me show you my vision of STOs ship tier progression:
Tier 1...............Tier 2.............Tier 3....................Tier 4...........................Tier 5
Miranda
> Centaur ---> Saber
> Akira/Defiant
> Prometheus/Hermes
Constitution -> Excelsior -> Ambassador -> Galaxy/Excalibur --> Sovereign/Emissary
Oberth
> Nova
> Intrepid
> Olympic/Nebula ---> Oracle/Luna
B'rel
> QulDun ----> Norgh
> Ki'tang
> Hegh'ta/Refit-B'rel (but called K'vort)
B'rel
> Somraw ---> Qorgh
> Pach
> Qin/Guramba
B'rel
> K'tanco ----> K'tinga
> Vor'cha
> Tor'Kaht/Marauder/Varanus
> Negh'var
That's right. No NX and no endgame Excelsior. In exchange for that, Feds get to branch out into two sub-categories at Tier 4 already. Also, the Vo'Quv gets replaced by a true hulking command cruiser Negh'var. Benefit of this whole chart: it actually feels like a ship evolution instead of the hodgepodge theme park we have now. :P
Most likely true. Even if the Devs gave the feds what they want they may not be happy with it for some obscure canon reason.
I can't imagine klingons getting in one of these things.
It is like a big naval battle and some jerk shows up in a canoe.
I would jump up on the desk in my ready room and dance a jig, even if they didn't replace them with anything.
I'm sorry, but I have to start this out by stating simply that you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Now, to explain why you don't know what you're talking about.
First off, not canon? -Not- canon? Excuse me, but how do you think those fighters -got- to the front lines of the war between the Dominion and the Federation? What do you think the Scimitar was? And don't go saying "Nemesis was a horrible movie and shouldn't count as canon." It's as much canon as any of the other movies and TV serieses, whether or not you liked it.
As for fighters and carriers not making sense in Star Trek, that's flatly absurd. Even if they hadn't ever appeared on the series, that wouldn't make them "not make sense." They've already got shuttlecraft, which are armed, though not -heavily.- They've also got the Runabouts, which are far more heavily armed, and much more durable, as well as being capable of higher speeds. Then there's the prototype Delta Flyer design from Voyager, which would definitely be a precursor to an effective Fighter design. As for the ships packing a punch, let's take a look at the Defiant. Tiny little ship, but packs a massive punch. This shows that Federation technology has advanced to allow for far heavier firepower on much smaller ships.
And, that's just the information that shows why it's entirely reasonable for the -Federation- to have Carriers.
As for the KDF, well, here's where there's a significance that applies to pretty much all of the major factions (Fed, KDF, Romulans). Ship sizes have been steadily growing, at least since the 22nd century. In ENT and TOS, yeah, Carriers don't make as much sense. The main factions, in particular, didn't have ships large enough to carry fighters, though too large to be fighters themselves. By TNG, however, ship sizes have grown significantly. Granted, not -all- ships are as large as the Galaxy class (such as the aforementioned Defiant class as well as the Intrepid and Prometheus classes).
However, like I said, you can look at the changes in Klingon and Romulan ships and see the same progression. The D-7 from TOS is smaller than the Vor'cha and Negh'var of the late 24th century. The D'deridex class Romulan Warbird is by far larger than the Birds of Prey seen in the 23rd Century. The Galaxy class is 42 decks with a length of ~650 meters, while the D'deridex has 45+ decks and is over 1,000 meters long.
In fact, if they'd chosen to go with a "solid" form rather than having the large empty area in the middle of the D'deridex class, they could have easily served as a carrier.
See, now there's one of the problems. This isn't your Star Trek. Unless you decide to spend the money necessary to buy the rights and put out your own game/books/movies/etc., it will -never- be your Star Trek.
And on that note, I'm quite thankful this isn't your Star Trek. As the vulcans would say, your reasoning is quite illogical.
It would also be a stark reversal from the real world - in the real world, the carrier is slower then the planes it is carrying. That alone would create a very odd dynamic.
The Nemesis did not use their fighters in combat at all. Why was that? It seems they didn't see them as valuable.
Of course they got shuttle craft. But they don't start them in combat for extra firepower. They serve for transportation and of course they have some self-defense capabilities. After all, their are threats small enough to be dealt with for Runabouts. For example, fighters like they were employed by the Maquis.
And the Defiant is as small as they got it. The Defiant was not one of those all-purpose Cruisers. It didn't have the vast shield arrays, crew quarters, cargo bays, plain empty internal space, laboratories, aboretums and holodecks. It didn't even have a real sickbay. And yet, it wasn't a fighter and it was significantly larger then any fighter we see in Startrek Online.
No, it's not reasonable, since you are ignoring what real world fighters and carriers can do and what their purpose is - and how Startrek fighters as depicted on the screen don't have it (nor, in fact, Startrek Fighters and Carriers in Startrek Online have it.)
A single fighter in Startrek is _no_ threat at all to a Cruiser. A typical engagement between a shuttle and a larger ship consists of the shuttle ducking and weaving and hoping to ge to a safe spot (or at least its crew). There is no hope of breaking the larger ships defenses.
If you look at the typical Startrek weapon, for example a torpedo, you will notice that most ships can survive multiple hits of them - even without shields, but the standard case is that we do have shields. So even if we arm our Startrek fighter as good as we can (carrying a few photon torpedoes or quantum torpedoes), it still can't really hope to survive them.
A real world plane can be armed with weapons that pose a significant threat to a single naval vessel. It might not sink the ship, but it might be enough to need considerable repairs and possible some time in a friendly airport. A single hit can be all that it takes to deal this kind of damage.
You wil notice the type of damage these weapons inflict is very different. Real world planes have considerably more firepower compared to a real world ships defenses then we see it in Startrek.
Another aspect about planes and carriers is that a carrier serves as its operation base. The carrier cannot itself attack targets on land. But it can send out its planes to achieve this. And they can move considerably quicker then any other naval vessel.
In Startrek, there is no distinctinction between "land" and "water" for fighters vs carriers. Both fly through space. The fighter might be able to enter the atmosphere, but Startrek cruisers are quite capable of attacking ground targets within the atmosphere on their own. The only purpose of smaller vessels can be to send troops to the ground when transporters aren't working.
A fighter craft is definitely not faster then a typical Cruiser, in fact it is typically more the opposite.
Planes also serve as a defense against others. Aircraft carriers are typically found within a fleet, and part of their planes provide a combat air patrol that's sole purpose is to be the first line of defense against hostile planes that could send their weapons against the carrier or its fleet.
We have seen nothing like that in Startrek. The instances where we saw fighters in real battles at all, we saw them in the middle of the fleet. There are no combat air patrols provided by shuttlecraft when the Enterprise flies through unknown space. It didn't happen in peace times, nor did it happen in war times (like in the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode). A small reason might be that any sufficiently sized threat (e.g. not a fighter) could possible outrun any type of fighter screen (see abocve.)
Within Startrek Online, you will notice one thing - fighters from Carriers can be spawned endlessly. That is a game mechanic, just like our own ships can spawn endlessly and not permanently lost. If we remove the respawns for a moment (To some extent we can create such a scenario - there are fighter only NPC groups in PvE), you will notice how quickly all those fighters are destroyed.
Every time you destroy a fighter, you remove some of the fighter wing's firepower, too. If you had bothered to put all that firepower into a single ship, it would have taken a lot longer for that ship to be destroyed and any firepower to be lost. So instead of slapping all that firepower on 12 fighters, you should have put it on one single ship. Even in the worst case, complete loss of the fighters and complete loss of the ship, you would have inflicted more damage with the ship. And there is a higher chance that maybe you dealt enough damage with that ship to avoid a loss, or at least were able to retreat without losing half of your wing.
In the real world, we don't have shields and the type of armor used in Startrek. In the real world, all this scales very badly. You can probably use the exact same type of missiles or guns to bring down a small airplane then you can use to destroy a large one. It can be more useful to scale up your numbers then to scale up your size under these circumstances, e.g. it is actually more effective to send a wing of 6 planes armed with 6 missiles each then it is to send a larger plane with 36 missiles. Beause those 6 wings need 6 hits to be destroyed, while that large plane probably still needs only one.
Of course, in the real world, the larger plane would have other disadantages, too - it would probably be less maneuverable and easier to detect, too.
I think a Vulcan would hesitate from such conclusions without sufficient data, and with sufficient data, he would come to the same conclusion I did.
I can also put a short version of all the above.
Startrek Combat doesn't feature fighters. Startrek flagships have never been carriers. If this is to feel like Startrek, Carriers have no place in it.
---
That is pretty much all I will say on that matter. Again, this thread is on the hypothetical and not realistic topic of what would happen if we would remove Carriers from the game. We had about a Billion of discussions on why Carriers make sense or not sense for the game, for Startrek or for the Federation. We don't need to waste that much more bandwidth on it.
Still need a purpose..
How about some detatchable repair or turret bays, with the added bonus that if the ship is stationary it get substantial power bonuses and/or bonuses to ships within 10-15k..
Possibly with two more weapon slots than other T5 ships.
Ie: The ship can drop two turret platforms, complete with shields... Each of these have say 250k hitpoints, and sports 4 omnidirectional Dirsuptor Cannon turrets and 2 Heavy Photon/quantum turrets.
For the ship isself, once it is completely stationary is grants a minor repair (say 75 HP ticks) to all ships in range, as well as accuracy, defense and power bonuses.
That way, using one of these can give a major tactical advantage, but multiple would be less effective. (unlike today where their relative "power" increases exponentially as the number of ships increases)
& I would fly the Kar-Fi even without any Frigates/ Fighters. maybe add an eng console. Anyway, thats my $.02
This is the slight difference between a naval carrier and the Vov.
Fix the pet spam and give them better controls.
Enhance gameplay targeting mechanics for players.
That could actually be an idea for the existing Carriers, too. In addition to various types of fighters, the ymight also be able to fit special weapons into those bay slots.
Disruptor Spears, Multiwarhead Torpedoes, Cluster Torpedoes.
Currently, Carriers can engage enemies at a range of up to 15 km instead of just up to 10 km. Maybe it's time for some special weapons with a longer range. (I think they could then modify the Phaser Lance and the Disruptor Javelin to also fire at his extended range).
Have you actually watched the episodes where we see the Federation operate fighters?
We see the fighters alongside larger ships when the fleet gets underway in "Favor the Bold"
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100123101335/memoryalpha/en/images/1/13/Federation_fleet_departs_Starbase_375.jpg
We see them among the ships before they detect the 1254 Dominion ships at the end of that episode.
So we now have two possibilites: Either Starfleet is lead by morons who launch their fighters right before the fleet gets underway so it looks 'cool', then recover them before going to warp, then launch them again out of boredom halfway to their target before they detect the enemy...or your entire line of argumentation collapses right here and now and it becomes clear the Federation does not have carriers...does not need carriers.
I have no idea wtf you've been watching but it was clearly not the DS9 episodes the rest of us watched.