test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

Design Your Ship Round 1 [Alpha VS Beta]

11112141617

Comments

  • Options
    robeasomrobeasom Member Posts: 1,911 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    Even though they all look terrible, I vote for all of them. Customization is one of the best features of STO.

    except there is not much customisation in STO its not like we can use the saucer section then the nacelles and the pylons or we get to pick is a few shoddy designs that are not even related to ships we want and constantly ask for on the forums and then we get ignored for this type of rubbish. Guaranteed it will beOmega that will win and that will be yet another t6 ship for feds and KDF and romulans are left out again until they decide if this was a success and then decide that not enough people play KDF or RR to want to do the same type of ship for them. The only ship that KDF and RR want are T6 B'rels and T'varo.

    My wallet will not be opened until these are released release them and then I will throw the money your way
    NO TO ARC
    Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
    Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
    Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    alexhurlbutalexhurlbut Member Posts: 292 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    Don't like that the Alpha's lower set of naccelles are different in dimensions from the upper set. Voted Beta.
  • Options
    maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    I'm hoping that they are designing a ship of a scale consistent with existing 2 hanger carriers in game. The images make it hard to choose since the side view really shows you very little detail.
    I chose the Beta because it was the better of the only 2 designs that follow more traditional Starfleet configurations. I'm no fan of quad engine designs, I think saucers alone with engines harken back to the Enterprise era and are a step backward in the design evolution of these ships and I don't believe that a ship has to look like a brick with warp engines to be convincing as a carrier.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • Options
    mulgannon2mulgannon2 Member Posts: 14 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    To answer concerns, the intention of the thread is for discussion between the two designs presented. I welcome the idea of those ships being presented more in General Discussion, please. They will not be added into this design a ship campaign (campaigns like these require a lot of lead time, such as weeks to months of planning). :)

    And yet I feel that the people who came up with the concepts of these designs either didn't care about how ugly they looked, or your team voted on them because they looked good, but we are not really receiving them well. Many of us are saying on how ugly these ships are.

    I know the person who made the designs probably worked hard, but they are being negatively received. Although there is profound support, there is a lot of negativity and we are only voting on the less of the 2 uglies. I fear for the other tiers of voting because it is only getting uglier and uglier in ship designs.

    There are only 2 designs I would be less embarrassed to fly and command, but I would rather fly a crappy Miranda than any of these designs.
  • Options
    certhancerthan Member Posts: 11 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    #TeamBeta
    I agree with rexyj, Omega or Delta, but Omega preferred above all others. Just voting for the lesser of two evils. Beta looks like a shovel too much. Aesthetics are actually a legitimate part of vehicle (read: Starship design). It will be interesting to see what Omega looks like from the port-side view. A symmetrical nacelle design would also look rather nice.
    I hope that when they show the rest of Omega the designers will keep in mind the concept "form follows function" and place multiple launch decks. First, this is a damage control philosophy of having more than one for redundancy [this IS a combat capable vessel after all] and having multiple decks interspersed would allow for flight crew to be in many places. This would require multiple weapon strikes to take out it's primary mission-being a "ferry" for fighters and other small craft.

    Secondly, this would allow for massive launch capability in case the ship WERE under a gang-like assault and give the Captain, crew and any flag officer more options in mission planning.

    Thirdly this would give the ship's Captain the capability for a massive rapid launch in a rescue/evacuation, a scenario seen in many episodes in the Star Trek franchise series (which is more likely to occur with Starfleet's overall mission as a humanitarian armada).
  • Options
    posianposian Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    Alpha
  • Options
    highlandrisehighlandrise Member Posts: 354 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    maby this as the carrier, but make same size as the KDF Carrier you can get at level 40. and ,make this a level 40 Fed Carrier you can get same way.

    Also make a Romulian Carrier out of the Derediz and use the Starter ship and carrier pets

    torquemada_final_version_by_tomxaros-d4x5au1.png

    But a Defiant Class As a Carrier Pet. Like the Level 40 Free KDF Carrier uses a BOP as a carrier pet

    defiant4pic.jpg

    I Linked and Suggested the exact same Design /Ship as a better alternative several Times toghether with another new Escort Type as a Possible Frigatte Pet....but basically got a NO, because we are only allowed to choose one of those "awesome" premades.....sorry for the sarcasm but when so many people repeatedly say that they dont really like any of those choices we are given, and that they pick the "least ugliest" than as a company i would start rethinking if thats a good idea to ignore all those People, and still bring a Ship with one of those not really wanted designs into the Game.....but instead ... i dont know..hmm..maybe ask us for Designs? but whatever.....i first refused to vote for any of those...but still decided to vote....just for "Damage Controll" like someone mentioned....if it has to be one of those, atleast let it be the least ugliest one...will i buy that?...hmm that i will have too see when the final product is out......
  • Options
    strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,666 Bug Hunter
    edited September 2015
    #TeamBeta
    mulgannon2 wrote: »
    To answer concerns, the intention of the thread is for discussion between the two designs presented. I welcome the idea of those ships being presented more in General Discussion, please. They will not be added into this design a ship campaign (campaigns like these require a lot of lead time, such as weeks to months of planning). :)

    And yet I feel that the people who came up with the concepts of these designs either didn't care about how ugly they looked, or your team voted on them because they looked good, but we are not really receiving them well. Many of us are saying on how ugly these ships are.

    I know the person who made the designs probably worked hard, but they are being negatively received. Although there is profound support, there is a lot of negativity and we are only voting on the less of the 2 uglies. I fear for the other tiers of voting because it is only getting uglier and uglier in ship designs.

    There are only 2 designs I would be less embarrassed to fly and command, but I would rather fly a crappy Miranda than any of these designs.

    'mulgannon2' I think your second paragraph starts off in the right direction because clearly 'pwlaughingtrendy' and the whole team around him has likely put a lot of though, effort, and time into creating some unique concepts. Perhaps most should reset expectations of Carriers based on an earlier posts I made to this thread, carriers in Star Trek aren't Aircraft Carriers or Star Destroyers holding 100's of craft, they do not 'require' a crew of 2500 like a KDF Vo'quv Carrier in a support role--they could as easily have a regular crew compliment of 450 or 2500. I posted a URL not a giant image to a Star Wars Class Destroyer but only to show how it bared stricking resemblance to the Alpha & Omega designs. Carriers in this game at best have two to three times the hanger bay capacity of any starship, most ships except carriers don't launch fighters during tactical maneuvers.

    So realize many will talk about the design elements they least like for a ship they didn't vote for, this is primarily to gain support for their position, others may be divided and state less favorable things about both--as the ship they really like isn't being voted on quite yet. Still peoples comments may indicate an early front rounter and jump out ahead of the pack. Still no ships I feel is deserving of anything less C+ rating, not because it's of a poor design--the artist representation just didn't align to my expectation. I voted for BETA because I'd hope it not to be a HUGE but medium Starship with moderate crew and preference towards Science or Engineering consoles as an 'Escort Carrier' or 'Light Carrier' or 'Medium Carrier' only in reference to 1, 2 or possibly 3 hanger bay capabilities depending on how many weapons it gives up or has a secondary deflector. These ships support additional Hangers & Cargo capabilities to perform a specific support role hopefully with improved maneuverability in a non daunting footprint.

    Any alternate ships should discussed should only have a URL listed and be clearly idenfied how it relates to why you like or dislike one of the two designs.
    Post edited by strathkin on
    0zxlclk.png
  • Options
    mulgannon2mulgannon2 Member Posts: 14 Arc User
    strathkin wrote: »

    'mulgannon2' I think your second paragraph starts off in the right direction because clearly 'pwlaughingtrendy' and the whole team around him has likely put a lot of though, effort, and time into creating some unique concepts. By equally the same token you need to realize everyone is going to have different notions in their mind as to their vision for what these ships should look like. Perhaps most should reset expectations of Carriers based on the two earlier posts I made to this thread, carriers in Star Trek aren't Aircraft Carriers or Star Destroyers holding 100's of craft, they do not 'require' a crew of 2500 like a KDF Vo'quv Carrier in a support role--they could as easily have a regular crew compliment of 575 or 2500. At best they have two to three times the hanger bay capacity of any starship, just most don't launch fighters during tactical maneuvers.

    Many will talk about the design elements they least like for a ship they didn't vote for, this is primarily to gain support for their position, others may be divided and state less favorable things about both--as the ship they really like isn't being voted on quite yet. Even the ship I feel is least deserving shouldn't earn any less than a C+ rating, not because it's of a poor design - they artist representation just didn't align to my expectation. Also it's equally possible as more detailed drawings or renders are presented as the field narrows people views may positively change.

    I voted for BETA because I'd hope it not be a HUGE but medium Starship footprint and moderate crew allowance with a preference for a Science/Engineering 'Escort Carrier' or 'Light Carrier'--not referring to escorts which or primarily Tactical Starships. A ship with the additional Hangers & Cargo capabilities required in a support role with better maneuverability rather than a massive footprint.

    In the Star Trek Universe, there is only 1 Mention of Fighters. When Sisko is returning with a fleet to reclaim DS9 and those "Fighters" are the Marquise Fighters, no larger than a runabout. A shuttle if you will. A runabout has a crew compliment of 5. To me that is not a fighter, that is a shuttle. A transportation device. A Fighter, is a 1 man, maybe 2 man killing machine with guns and missiles with a high top speed and maneuverability. So the current designs are all designed to Launch Shuttles. When I look at these ships, I see shuttles coming out, not a fighter wing. It doesn't need to look like a brick to launch fighters. It doesn't even need to look like a Star Destroyer, or Air Craft Carrier. These ships from the immediate look, do not say Carrier or even a Light Carrier. I see Federation regular starships that got hit by the Ugly Bat.

    I am glad you enjoy these ugly designs, but I do not. As it is being stated over and over again by many people that they are only voting for the less of the ugly since we have no other choices. If they wanted to Design new ships, thats great get our feedback. But sadly, what we are seeing, will be the final drafts and put into the game. Regardless of what we think. They will take the "Most Popular out of the Ugly" and put that in game first with a few "Customization's" and hopefully we can make it look a lot less Ugly.

    But sadly, none of these are saying Carrier. But I guess a carrier in Star Trek only needs to carry 6 fighters to be called a Carrier.

    Although not part of the game, and even yet not even in the same "Universe" But I recommend looking at the Carriers in the X3 Games and see how many fighters they can launch. Then look at this game and ask yourself, Honestly, is 6 Fighters a Carrier, or a rapid deployment and run ship? Because from what I see, 6 Fighters does not make a Carrier. When I think Carrier I am seriously looking at 20+ fighters being deployed, not a measly 6 Shuttlecraft.
  • Options
    ironclad321ironclad321 Member Posts: 13 Arc User
    beta, not really to keen on either
  • Options
    xaneksxaneks Member Posts: 29 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    Beta. It looks more carrier than cruiser
  • Options
    maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    If they had wanted to make this a "design your own ship' the first thing they should have done is put up a round of quetionaires with desired options listed. Unified Monohull or separate main and engineering sections, 2 or 4 Warp Nacelles, Straightened Chevron, Rounded Chevron, Round Saucer, Widened Oval Saucer, Lengthened Oval Saucer, Forward split Saucer, Half radius Saucer, etc. Then design the ships based off the averages that get the most selections.
    Well not much point thinking about that now but this pattern of design is getting monotonous, somebody really has a one track mind, the only thing missing on a couple of them is the Tron paint scheme.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • Options
    starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    None of the quad-nacelle ships look right with different-sized nacelles. Beta.
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • Options
    mistressbenihimemistressbenihime Member Posts: 224 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    alpha, because beta is ugly!
    betas saucer-section is to big, it's completely out of proportion. I hate the look of the galaxy class for the same reason. the worst looking of all enterprises.
    I prefer sleeker designs like the Sovereign and Intrepid classes. alpha is more in line whit that.

    the alpha ship reminds me a bit of the Prometheus one of the best looking federation designs.
    THE NEW CRAFTING SYSTEM IS TERRA-BAD
    First of all it's not even a crafting system! It's just a dumb game system that's nothing more than a glorified slots machine.
    second the "special items" you hope will be the saving the saving grace are messed up to.
  • Options
    sharpie65sharpie65 Member Posts: 679 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    mulgannon2 wrote: »
    But sadly, none of these are saying Carrier. But I guess a carrier in Star Trek only needs to carry 6 fighters to be called a Carrier.

    I'd link you to another post about a Tier 6 Carrier-concept, but it'd be better for you to read my response. A "carrier in Star Trek" as you put it, could do with being able to spew out fighters..but you seem to be forgetting that this is a video game, and therefore doesn't have infinite amounts of (disk) space to make that belief possible.

    In that post, there's mention of "why carriers in this game only have 2 hangars" - a perfectly plausible solution is that while modern day carriers can carry and deploy approx. 40-50 aircraft, that is virtually all of it's armament. In STO, our carriers are, essentially, glorified and somewhat-oversized science vessels - they still have weapons, which is why they can only have, at most, 12 fighters/other small craft out.

    You also seem to be forgetting that while the carriers can only have 6-12 fighters out at any one time, their complement of said small craft is not "only" 6-12. If it were, they would only be able to use those 2 hangars-worth of pets before they were ultimately destroyed - thus defeating the object of being a carrier.
    MXeSfqV.jpg
  • Options
    thlaylierahthlaylierah Member Posts: 2,984 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    #TeamBeta
    After reading this thread and seeing how the vote is going, I would suggest making the ship with all of those bits pictured available as customization options.

    That way some of us can get the Carriers we want and the rest can have their Escorts with a Hanger bay added.
  • Options
    mulgannon2mulgannon2 Member Posts: 14 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    sharpie65 wrote: »
    mulgannon2 wrote: »
    But sadly, none of these are saying Carrier. But I guess a carrier in Star Trek only needs to carry 6 fighters to be called a Carrier.

    I'd link you to another post about a Tier 6 Carrier-concept, but it'd be better for you to read my response. A "carrier in Star Trek" as you put it, could do with being able to spew out fighters..but you seem to be forgetting that this is a video game, and therefore doesn't have infinite amounts of (disk) space to make that belief possible.

    In that post, there's mention of "why carriers in this game only have 2 hangars" - a perfectly plausible solution is that while modern day carriers can carry and deploy approx. 40-50 aircraft, that is virtually all of it's armament. In STO, our carriers are, essentially, glorified and somewhat-oversized science vessels - they still have weapons, which is why they can only have, at most, 12 fighters/other small craft out.

    You also seem to be forgetting that while the carriers can only have 6-12 fighters out at any one time, their complement of said small craft is not "only" 6-12. If it were, they would only be able to use those 2 hangars-worth of pets before they were ultimately destroyed - thus defeating the object of being a carrier.

    My point still stands. We need Dedicated Carriers if they want to call them Carriers. Carrying 6-12 Fighters is NOT a Carrier. Its a Deployment Vessel. A freaking Military Transport that can defend itself since it lacks the Heavy Firepower of an Escort, Cruiser, Battle cruiser, Dreadnought. 6 Fighters on a Transport is a good number of Fighters for it to Launch. But if you give me a ship the size of a Cruiser and give me 12 Fighters, I will laugh at you (as the ship designer) and approve a Light Carrier with 20 Fighters over your Cruiser with 12 Fighters.

    Also X3 is a Video Game, with Military Transports that can carry 4-6 Fighters, Light Carriers with 20 Fighters, and Real Carriers with 40+ Fighters. So are we flying Military Transports, or Carriers?
  • Options
    maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    Calling the ship a Carrier sounds so much more impressive than calling it a Tender. True we can only have a few ships out at once, but factor in the infinite number of ships we can deploy to fill those ranks and it starts to lean convincingly towards requiring a large ship to house all of those extra fighters. This is where those smaller ships with hangers become unrealistic.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • Options
    starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    Now's your chance to vote on which design you prefer! Your votes will determine what ship is built in a single-elimination voting tournament. As the tournament progresses, we will continue to update the designs with more detail!

    http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/9564953

    Just curious, Trendy: I can see that Alpha is winning on the forums (unfortunately), but who's winning overall?
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • Options
    strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,666 Bug Hunter
    edited September 2015
    #TeamBeta
    mulgannon2 wrote: »
    In the Star Trek Universe...

    Well I stand behind my support of the designs put forward by the team I wished you found one you liked, or will warm up to one as more detailed graphics & renders are available as the field narrows.

    Still with respect to your comments about fighters I think it's important to post this so everyone is clear why I suggested Carrier is very misleading. Your idea of Carrier like others I suspected gives an impression of launching 20+ craft not limited to 2 Hanger Bays or 12 Fighters or Small Shuttles, which is only double the capacity of Heavy Command Cruisers or Heavy Escorts Carrier with 1 Hanger. It's why suggested a rephrasing to use 'escort carrier' or 'light carrier' or 'medium carrier' to denote the limited capability possibly for up to 2 Hangers perhaps a 3 Hanger Variant (sacrifices 3 weapons slots)--regardless there is no requirement they need to be massive Starships.

    Also realize when I used referenced the Klingon KDF Vo'quv Carrier I used 'Fighters' specifically as it comes with To'Duj Fighters (2 wings of 3) for each of it's two hangers. Klingon's may also load both Hangers with B'Rotlh Birds of Prey (Two raiders) per hanger but it still doesn't quite explain its large crew compliment of 4000 personnel? Make it a Engineering or Science preferred Bridge Seating cause there's better ways to provide ship repair / recovery capabilities than giving it a Ridiciously large crew to simple heal the hull only because its 5x larger than it needs to be?

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/To'Duj_Fighter_(playable) -> URLS refer to Playable craft not Hanger pets.

    Your message continued identifying fighters are no larger than a runabout, but I think I can read between the lines, as I think you had in meant to say Yellow Workbea's reguarly seen at ESD [1 crew], a slightly larger version [2 crew] can be found at rest in ESD Hanger--Hanger Pets are called Reinforced Shield Repair Units [2 crew] and their size is comparable to a fighter. Picard & Data boarded a Romulan Scorpian Fighter [2 crew] in Nemesis.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Scorpion_Fighter --Earn in Sphere of Influence for Fed Captains
    Fed Advanced Peregrine Fighters (2 wings of 3)
    Fed Reinforced Shield Repair Units (2 deployed pair)--No offensive just shield repair

    Runabouts (Referred to as Corvettes) like the Danube are Playable Small Craft & Hanger Pets, they are the industrial workhorse with far more powerful engines often used to tow Starships, as a result they have far greater structural integrity equvalent to a Clydesdale, they are 35% larger than the typical quarter horse or Type 8 Shuttlecraft. Type 8 Shuttlecraft are only used for short interstellar travel between close solar systems, are usable as Small Craft only and carry a crew compliment of 3. Type 10 Shuttles are 20% larger than Type 8 Shuttle with a crew compliment of 4 and are available as Small Craft & Hanger Pets.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Danube_Class_Runabout (2 deployed pair)
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Type-10_Shuttlecraft (2 wings of 3)
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Type-8_Shuttlecraft
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Delta_Class_Shuttle (2 deployed pair)

    One other Playable Small Craft Runabout (Corvette) is called the Yellowstone which is the Runabout Harry Kim designed when an accident saw him back on Earth in an Alternate Reality. That however is not an available Federation Hanger Pet.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Yellowstone_Class_Runabout

    Hopefully some of my last two or three posts have given something for the guys back at Cryptic to ponder for idea's, but also get people really thinking about what do they really want to see in this Carrier? Alpha leads me to believe it's supports what a large massive dreadnought similar to the Vo'Quv or Scimitar. So I'm rallying behind Beta for the win. I'll just be surprised if Alpha or Omega wins fanfare and turns out to be a Giant 2500+ crew ship to support 12 fighters a poor turn rate but then few go to buy it and fly it in game. But the Scimitar was equally large and quite popular so who knows. :o
    Post edited by strathkin on
    0zxlclk.png
  • Options
    jazzeyejazzeye Member Posts: 8 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    Love the new look, hope this ship has 5 forward and 4 rear weapons also allowing for frigates as well as delta fighters that would be really great.
  • Options
    lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    Although I like neither too well, the different sized nacelles on Alpha pushes me towards Beta. Just really don't like mis-match nacelles on ships!
    SulMatuul.png
  • Options
    meslamteameslamtea Member Posts: 13 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    On behalf of the Ferengi Alliance, my vote is your vote for 30k ec. Call me ingame at Qul@meslamtea. Get the ship YOU want!
  • Options
    sargerocksargerock Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    Beta
  • Options
    wakeoflovewakeoflove Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    strathkin wrote: »
    mulgannon2 wrote: »
    In the Star Trek Universe...

    Well I stand behind my support of the designs put forward by the team I wished you found one you liked, or will warm up to one as more detailed graphics & renders are available as the field narrows.

    Still with respect to your comments about fighters I think it's important to post this so everyone is clear why I suggested Carrier is very misleading. Your idea of Carrier like I suspected others has gives an impression of launching 20+ craft not limited to 2 Hanger Bays or 12 Fighters or Small Shuttles, which is only double the capacity of Heavy Command Cruisers or Heavy Escorts with 1 Hanger. It's why suggested a rephrasing to use 'escort carrier' or 'light carrier' to denote the limited capability possibly for a future 2 Hanger & 3 Hanger Variant--regardless these still aren't required to be anywhere close to massive Starships. Also realize when I used referenced the Klingon KDF Vo'quv Carrier I used 'Fighters' specifically as it comes with To'Duj Fighter (2 wings of 3) for each of it's two hangers. Klingon's may also load both Hangers with B'Rotlh Birds of Prey (Two raiders) per hanger but it still doesn't quite explain its large crew compliment of 4000 personnel? Make it a Engineering or Science preferred Bridge Seating cause there's better ways to provide ship repair / recovery capabilities giving than giving it Ridiciously large crew to heal the hull only because you made it 5x larger than it needs to be to only fly 12 shuttle?

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/To'Duj_Fighter_(playable) -> URLS refer to Playable craft not Hanger pets.

    Your message started by identifying fighters are no larger than a runabout, but I think I can read between the lines, as I think you had in meant to say Yellow Workbea's reguarly seen at ESD [1 crew], a slightly larger version [2 crew] can be found at rest in ESD Hanger--Hanger Pets are called Reinforced Shield Repair Units [2 crew] and their size is comparable to a fighter. Picard & Data boarded a Romulan Scorpian Fighter [2 crew] in Nemesis.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Scorpion_Fighter --Earnable from Sphere of Influence for Fed Captains
    Advanced Peregrine Fighters (2 wings of 3)
    Reinforced Shield Repair Units (2 deployed pair)--No offensive just shield repair capabilities

    Runabouts (Referred to as Corvettes) like the Danube are Playable Small Craft & Hanger Pets, they are the industrial workhorse with far more powerful engines often used to tow Starships, as a result they have far greater structural integrity equvalent to a Clydesdale, they are 35% larger than the typical quarter horse or Type 8 Shuttlecraft. Type 8 Shuttlecraft are only used for short interstellar travel between close solar systems, are usable as Small Craft only and carry a crew compliment of 3. Type 10 Shuttles are 20% larger than Type 8 Shuttle with a crew compliment of 4 and are available as Small Craft & Hanger Pets.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Danube_Class_Runabout (2 deployed pair)
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Type-10_Shuttlecraft (2 wings of 3)
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Type-8_Shuttlecraft
    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Delta_Class_Shuttle (2 deployed pair)

    One other Playable Small Craft Runabout (Corvette) is called the Yellowstone which is the Runabout Harry Kim designed when an accident saw him back on Earth in an Alternate Reality. That however is not an available Federation Hanger Pet.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Yellowstone_Class_Runabout

    Hopefully some of my last two or three posts have given something for the guys back at Cryptic to ponder, cause the design of Alpha leads me to believe they are looking to build another huge Starship like the Vo'Quv. Still I really hope Beta pulls out the win! :o
    There's very little point in arguing the semantics of the game. We call these two hangar'd ships "carriers" and that's that. And apparently the reason we need a crew of 4k is to build the next set of fighters/shuttles we're going to send out to be instantly blown out of the sky by FAW3, lol.

    I don't think I'd be able to find it to post, but I saw a youtube video where every ship in a crystaline entity advanced was a voquv and with all those fighters deployed, it was lagging really hard. This is the reason the devs have limited the number of fighters any one carrier can produce, because at any one time they may not be the only carrier on the field, and having 5-10 carriers each launching 20+ fighters would only compound that problem.

    A potential solution to get the feel/look you want to see from carriers might be to make the ship launch assets that look like a wing of fighters but only actually count as one pet. e.g. it could look like a V formation of 5 fighters but it's actually just one pet. I don't know if that would allow the look of more fighters than we really have without causing lag or not, but I'm just throwing that out there.

    I understand wanting the game to look better/more true to expectation. I personally would love it if each torpedo fired looked like 4-5 torpedoes fired in a volley because I find the occasional pfft of a torpedo launch when not augmented by volley or high yield to look very lack luster and not like what we usually saw on screen. It wouldn't have to do more damage, just look more impressive, then high yield's visual effect could just be making the torpedoes extra sparkly glowy.

    Also, the yellowstone IS available as a hangar pet, it's available from fleet starbases as the elite version of the danube.
    NebulaOdyssey1_zpsqjc6anjg.jpg
    The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
  • Options
    ayradyssayradyss Member Posts: 187 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    Had to go with Alpha. I like the nod to the Galaxy design in the Beta, but the saucer is way too much clam-shell and the whole thing just looks compressed from front to rear. Needs to be stretched out longer. (For the record, I'd like to see rounder saucers, more like the old Constellations. Also, ships that don't look like they were sat on by a giant and squashed flat. "Sleek" does not have to mean "pancaked" -- less pancake ships, please. Seems everything these days is either triangular or stretched/squashed in one direction or the other.)
    Live long, and prosper.
  • Options
    kilkapupkilkapup Member Posts: 1 New User
    #TeamBeta
    A carrier needs to have a large grand look and the sweeping saucer fits that requirement
  • Options
    maxvitormaxvitor Member Posts: 2,213 Arc User
    #TeamBeta
    I think we really need to lose this "Sleek" nonsense when shopping for a Carrier, a sleek Carrier is an oxymoron or at least it should be in any discussion that isn't about something ridiculous. There might be more to like if there was more to see in the designs. I think they should get rid of the off sized warp engines, make them all the same size or replace them with something else, a weapons or sensor pod, because right now all of the quad designs with tiny extra warp engines just look like they threw them in there as an afterthought to fill the space.
    If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
    Oh Hell NO to ARC
  • Options
    jorantomalakjorantomalak Member Posts: 7,133 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    went alpha kinda reminds me of an upgraded cheyenne class heavy cruiser
  • Options
    christopher757christopher757 Member Posts: 7 Arc User
    #TeamAlpha
    #TeamAlpha
This discussion has been closed.