test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Enough with the Carries! STO or BGO?
darkdomitian
Member Posts: 4 Arc User
To me, in my own opinion, and to my own preference, I never liked the idea of carriers in a Star Trek game. It's not iconic and it interferes with ship to ship combat. I spend more time, fighting AI pets than other players, and they cloud up the zone with myriads of targets...especially when pvp'ing Klingons.
This new updates, however, makes it even more frustrating. Now the pets are stronger, have more defenses and shorter CD's. Fighting a group of Sci or Eng carriers is problematic enough for the more traditional ST ship. If they want to make stronger pets, then they should compensate by given carrier ships weaker shields and hulls. Like real life, the carrier is fairly weak in and of itself, both its attack and defense potential should rest in its air wing.
At the very least they should give players something that makes pets less likely to be targeted than a player ship. Right now a group of carriers is in effect having a constant ability to cloud sensors of the opposing faction.
Of all the game buffs, nerfs, enhancements and tweaks, making carrier ships stronger was the least needed addition to the game.
This new updates, however, makes it even more frustrating. Now the pets are stronger, have more defenses and shorter CD's. Fighting a group of Sci or Eng carriers is problematic enough for the more traditional ST ship. If they want to make stronger pets, then they should compensate by given carrier ships weaker shields and hulls. Like real life, the carrier is fairly weak in and of itself, both its attack and defense potential should rest in its air wing.
At the very least they should give players something that makes pets less likely to be targeted than a player ship. Right now a group of carriers is in effect having a constant ability to cloud sensors of the opposing faction.
Of all the game buffs, nerfs, enhancements and tweaks, making carrier ships stronger was the least needed addition to the game.
Post edited by darkdomitian on
0
Comments
There ya go
http://www.dinajames.com/dinablog/wp-content/uploads/Butt-Hurt-Report-Form.jpg
I don't like it... so OBVIOUSLY, because it makes me work harder and I DON'T like it, it obviously voids canon, life and the universe itself!
edit: save for scimitars cloaking fighters
cause sometimes its party time!
...Seriously? You actually believe that bolded part? I suppose that is why Carriers COMPLETELY replaced Battleships... Because obviously the core ship was pathetic. Honestly that floating city is very well protected and you have to work hard to bring one down. They may not have deck guns but they pack a wallop in terms of Phalanx and Cruise Missiles. So no... Real Life Carriers are not helpless without their fighters. They are a lot MORE effective WITH their various aircraft but not so weak as you wish to assert them to be.
being someone who was actually in the navy, you are both right.. and both wrong.. carriers, without their support class, are some of the biggest weakest targets in the ocean. that is why, there are ships like destroyers and ticonderoga classes that keep a perimiter around it.. it is rare to find a carrier wandering around the sea all alone, as it would be vulnerable.. (being that i served aboard a ship that was attached to a carrier). and the last i checked, they did not have very many offensive or defensive weapons.. their offense is the fighters they carry, and their defense is the armada that surrounds them..
to me, fighters in star trek are a terrible idea. firstly, the only fighter we ever saw in action was a perigrine fighter, which had warp capabiities, which made a carrier not needed. yes, we saw picard and data fly a scorpian, but we never saw if that was a space fighter, or meant for inner atmosphere assaults like its design seems to point towards.. also, something small like that would last all of about three seconds against a targeted phaser attack. (i just cant see something that small having weapons, propulsion, lifesupport systems, and then being able to not only have a large enough shield grid, but be able to power it as well.. fighters in this game, while providing a cool gameplay for those who like it, was simply a slap in the face to the star trek fan, and makes no sense in the star trek world. this isnt star wars..
We of coruse now have missile cruisers, but from what I can tell, they are for a different tactic - tehy are essential a fighter that always use ramming speed, and to my knowledge, they are used less against ships and mostly on lands.
if you are a carrier Play you will know the changes going to the other side ist not stronger the carrier gameplay , the reality is horrible.
i am a carrier only Player the last 8 month but this TRIBBLE what they put today into the game is the biggest downgrade for carrier Players i ever have seen.
i vote for delete all carrier changes ist now not more playable!!!!
Not in space, not in Star Trek. Subwarp fighter craft an carriers are hopelessly outdated in the realm of this IP, though franchises with starfighters are more popular
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You're assuming that there's somehow an advantage of a smaller ship in space versus a larger one, and this just isn't so in this environment. Fighters in naval combat reside in an environment where the substance they traverse is vastly different in properties than the ocean. They can be small, carry large payloads, quickly.
In space, a cruiser can carry large payloads, quickly, and be more effective than say a destroyer, much less a fighter. There is no actual advantage to a space fighter except to tie up an enemies weapons. And thats if the fighter carries weapons that are bothersome.
The weapons fighters in this game have are powerful in a way far disproportional to their size. Any ship with beam arrays could clear space of them quickly, which we do regularly in PvP.
It's a forced mechanic, with no actual, nor logical reason to exist besides Star Wars and BSG have so many people fooled into thinking something that any engineer or physicist would shake their head at. They don't belong, and the only reason carriers exist in this game is because Klingons needed more ships at launch, and because the players whine so much about it.
"Second star on the right, and straight on till morning."
U.S.S. Weatherlight
I wonder what the carrier players would think if their ships had a finite number of craft to launch.
"Second star on the right, and straight on till morning."
U.S.S. Weatherlight
Not forget the matter and antimatter for the warp and impuls drive.
I can't find any video, but you can also check for the Scorpion hangar bay on the Scimitar. If there is a hangar bay full of fighters, it's probably a carrier. Or maybe they were kind enough to prepare an escape route for Picard.
Or they're meant for planetary assault and are launched from space...
"Second star on the right, and straight on till morning."
U.S.S. Weatherlight
You can stick your head in the sand and say "nonono" all day long, the truth is, while there are no true carrier presented as such on screen, there is a heavy use of various fighters for space battle.
In the first battle of Chin'taka we didn't see a single Galor and in the second we only saw them stand behind the Breen ships while they were disabling every enem ship so how can we have seen Galors blown up by Peregrines there?
We've also never seen a Maquis ship actually blow up a Galor.
You forgot to mention that in that vid you linked we saw the first wave get annihilated and that it's the 9th that actually managed to blow up a Galor.
DAMAR: I'll say this for Captain Sisko, he is persistent. That's the ninth wave of Federation fighters he's sent against us.
DUKAT: Well, his persistence is about to pay off. Let's give him his reward, shall we? Have a half dozen squadrons break formation and go after those fighters.
DAMAR: Yes, sir.
(that's what happens when you're using abridged episodes instead of the actual ones as a source)
There's a reason O'brien and Bashir recited "The Charge of the Light Brigade"...
Wow,
I'm glad that was just your opinion
Although I've jumped on the Scimitar Bandwagon the Vo'Quv is still hands down the best vessel in STO IMO.
Carriers are an outstanding mechanic in STO and I for one am overjoyed that they are getting their due.
Can you be any more blatant (and hideously wrong) with your mischaracterizations?
The first wave (of at least eight fighters shown on screen) loses one ship, and does what appears to be not insignificant damage to one, possibly two different Galors. The next shot shows another single Peregrine biting it, with a different Galor burning from stem to stern (the Jemmy battleship is not on-screen during the first pass). Thats two peregrines down for two or three severely damaged heavy cruisers.
Cut to Dukat's gambit, and a third (fourth?) Galor goes down with no loss of Federation craft. Call me old fashioned, but having a fighter craft capable of going toe to toe with enemy ships of the line and coming away with a 2:1 kills to losses ratio is absolutely nothing to sneeze at.
Because that had absolutely nothing to do with Sisko's task force charging head first into an enemy force with significantly greater numbers, and everything to do with their dislike of carrier tactics...
Then there's the whole loss of dozens (and even hundreds) of fighters, with very little damage to the Dominion fleet. Dukat enticed the Allied ships in by acting as Sisko wanted him to. He had no reason to follow the fighters because the fighters weren't a significant threat.
Seriously Stirling, I severely doubt you actually watched the episodes you try to reference. Hell, you apparently can't even properly interpret the line "There's a reason O'brien and Bashir recited "The Charge of the Light Brigade"..." Do you even know what the Charge of the Light brigade is about?
"Second star on the right, and straight on till morning."
U.S.S. Weatherlight
Someone appears to have forgotten that in space, for an explosion to occur you need oxygen. That means a hull breach. Bigger explosion, more oxygen, bigger hull breach.
As Trek should have taught you by now, multiple hull breaches = badness. For a ship to continue burning that means not only has internal fire supression failed, but emergency bulkheads and forcefields have also failed. When that happens, you lose your ship.
I'm very curious how you get from being shown two Peregrines (out of at least sixteen shown onscreen) exploding to somehow interpreting that as Sisko's task force's fighter wings being utterly decimated.
1) The video of the battle from SoA is linked on the previous page. Your inability to actually use your eyes isn't my problem.
2) Learn to identify sarcasm
3) CoL is the poetic rendition of a doomed, and utterly pointless, cavalry charge against an entrenched Russian artillery position during the Crimean War.
Any other completely false ad hominems you want to get off your chest?
Same goes for the cadet flying peregrine in the final year of the academy.
Efficient or not, it doesn't matter. Fighters are seen a lot of time in the show. Obviously, in the Chin'toga battle, they fail, because Sisko is in the Defiant, and while everyone fail, the Defiant win the day. It's part of the whole "the heroes win". If Sisko/Kira was piloting a peregrine, they would have succeeded. I seriously doubt Sisko would send peregrine to their death just to move some Galors. And there would be no point at all, as the Galors would stand their ground and anihilate the figthers.
As for the fighters doing damage, may I mention the Maquis fought Cardassian for years, and had some victories. They even attacked Galors, as seen several time (TNG, Voy, DS9). So, it must work, don't you think ?
Also, the peregrine use the same weaponry than a ship of the line (photon torpedoes, phaser beam array...), they just have less of it. Which mean a swarm of them will have the firepower of any other ship.
Yes, there were fighters shown in Star Trek. No, they have not been shown to launch from carrier ships during combat.
Might have something to do with the fact that as shown in miscellaneous Trek episodes and movies, in order for the shuttle to leave the ship or dock, the starship needs to lower the shields. I wonder how would carrier pilots in STO like this mechanic?
You do know that the defiant is basically a larger star ship with all the stuff not relevant to war stripped out for the most part, and a cloak crammed in for good measure. Big ships also do not mean big weapon systems, its quite possible something that size could be carrying around the same power beam array a full sized exploration ship is, though only one in comparison, or even a slightly weaker one. and shields in star trek are paneled, fore, aft, so on, one could assume that's to cover something that big effectively, so its quite possible they could put shields on something fighter sized as well.
so lets see from a more realistic standpoint a fight might carry 1-3 torps, so a wing of 6-12 that's 6-36 possible torp launches. torps that are the exact same as a larger ship carries. and its 6-12 energy weapons being focused on likely a similar point on the target.
And the idea that fighters are useless in space is also a tad silly, so long as they can carry at least one weapon that's dangerous to large targets, and survive to deliver that weapon, they will be around, though possibly unmanned. And small fast moving targets will always be small and fast moving, and at ranges were factions of degrees and mean hit or miss, size does matter, as does power output and other factors that are used to target said object. once their close their size should be less of a issue, and casualties should happen. But so long as a force can use a fraction of the cost of a larger ship to take it out, they will use that option. and given crew sizes loosing a couple of fighters compared to loosing a whole cruiser.
I'd personally attribute it more to there being no time in the Ep to do a hangar launch sequence (to do a sequence like that right you need at least sixty to ninety seconds, what would you cut to make room for that?), or that building a set and CGI-ing a hangar deck for a throwaway sequence wasn't in the budget.
I fully accept your rhetorical statement regarding shuttle bays and shields, and I'll respond in kind: If a starship can't launch a shuttle through its shields, how can it fire its weapons through the very same shield?
I believe that has to do with matching shield frequency, which has been used to bypass shields in a attach too, and is what the borg do. But I don't recall if its been brought up for moving a physical object through a shield, though I suppose if your shield and their matched you could form a hole to pass through.
and thats why PvP has gone to hell it's PvP, not PvPvE like Ker'rat
Okay, let's start by looking at the way Cardassian shield effects look like
(I honestly thought you'd be one of the last people I'd have to explain this to):
they look like explosions while it's just the energy being dissipated...and no I'm not making that up you can clearly see it here in the Klingon attack on DS9:
http://imageshack.us/a/img27/9863/l4k2.jpg
(to show I haven't docotored the images, here's the sequence on youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYePPtRE9eQ
and again in "Caretaker"
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5738/xpca.jpg
(again the source vid)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8AdTderaZI
...unless you're gonna say the explosions in the middle of...nowhere near the hull are explosions on the hull that leave no scorch marks whatsoever.;)
Thus the supposed explosions are impacts on the shields.
You can see it again in the 2nd wave that attacks that Galor with some of the supposed "explosions" dissipating without any damage to the ship.
I always found that effect confusing myself but it's what it is.
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6203/j8ul.jpg
So the first Galor that actually blows up was the Galor in the 9th wave...which is also shown by the fact that that Galor is shown in the same location in the formation.
That's blatantly wrong. In the opening pass, there are two Galors, a lower and an upper one. The lower one takes hits along the length of the ship, while the second takes fire on the blades and bridge area. Additionally, there are no Jemmy battleships above either of those ships. In fact, the upper Galor is leading the formation.
Cut to the second shot, with Peregrines diving past a Jemmy battleship, and a burning Galor. The Galor is below and behind the battleship, and on fire. So far that's three different Galors.
Shot three, the falling and dying Galor. No top covering battleship, but top-covering Hidekis. Hidekis in shot one were below and to the sides of the lower Galor. Additionally, no top covering Galor either (remember "top Galor" from shot one? not there at all, and given the trajectory of the Peregrine's dive in shot three, they would have gone pretty much straight through its bridge had it been there.). So either it's a different spot in the formation, or the Peregrines have already destroyed that top Galor. Take your pick on how to interpret that.
So that leaves us with two different scenarios: Either four different Galors are taking fire, with one dead, one burning along its entire length, and two with ambiguous injuries, or three Galors are taking fire, with two dead and one burning along its entire length. All at cost of...two Peregrines.
Either way the Peregrines come out far ahead in the calculation.
What you don't like does not exist.
Given that at another point in thread you insist that an explosion must come from oxygen and thus must be a hull-breach that's all I need to know, thank you.
I'm outta here.
Thank you for fully admitting you have no argument, and have to resort to pissy whines instead of actually defending your position.