test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Am I the only one thinking Carriers get devalued through the new upgrade?

2

Comments

  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,292 Arc User
    They state that other Carriers and those specifically named ones are not changing with THIS UPDATE. Though those specifically named ones would only get name and/or mechanic changes.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    Since we are surfing on power creep tsunamis anyways I think the best course of action would be to give regular carriers a third (!) hanger next and call it even again.
    I wonder if they would give a third hanger to the Temporal Heavy Dreadnoughts? Those ships are big enough.
  • postagepaidpostagepaid Member Posts: 2,777 Arc User
    Going by the engine trails in the screen shot pancake ships are being given the ability to slide like a hippo on iceskates.

    The hangar bay change isn't a big surprise as the discoprise was an obvious toe in the water towards making more carrier type ships available or appealing. The auto summon being another toe dip. Shame to see that actual carriers are being glossed over instead of gaining a third bay to offset the reduced weaponary when compared to the cruiser carriers.

    Maybe once grethor freezes over and the t6 kar'fi finally arrives they'll do something for the actual carrier class that's been around since the start of the game.
  • lordmerc22lordmerc22 Member Posts: 776 Arc User
    edited July 2019
    Please Delete (lagged and double posted)
  • lordmerc22lordmerc22 Member Posts: 776 Arc User
    Going by the engine trails in the screen shot pancake ships are being given the ability to slide like a hippo on iceskates.

    The hangar bay change isn't a big surprise as the discoprise was an obvious toe in the water towards making more carrier type ships available or appealing. The auto summon being another toe dip. Shame to see that actual carriers are being glossed over instead of gaining a third bay to offset the reduced weaponary when compared to the cruiser carriers.

    Maybe once grethor freezes over and the t6 kar'fi finally arrives they'll do something for the actual carrier class that's been around since the start of the game.

    Yes we all want a T6 catfish and a T6 VoQuv

    The way things go old carriers may be still better to sci toons due to more sci-friendly sit layout - the flight-decks will be more towards eng carriers[/quote]

  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,292 Arc User
    '...WITH THIS UPDATE'. Changes are being made incrementally - unlocking of Consoles, Romulan Ships flown by other Factions, etc. Coming here one would think this change is a catastrophe of Biblical proportions.

    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • tobiashirttobiashirt Member Posts: 630 Arc User
    To my sensibilities, the easiest way to make 'true' carriers/classic carriers distinct and offset the flight deck changes would be a third hangar. The amount of lag this could lead to or some rewiring needed to make a third hangar work may be why it isn't here yet.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,292 Arc User
    Three Bays of Tactical Flyer Squadrons plus the Reinforcing Squadrons Console and Superior Area Denial!! It will be glorious. :)
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • jagdtier44jagdtier44 Member Posts: 341 Arc User
    I don't really see the issue, most real carriers are sci focused and toss out that lovely space magic along with 2 flights of usually frigates. FDCs are engi focused which is already lackluster in our DPS focused game and adding another hanger to them isn't putting existing carriers out of a home
  • postagepaidpostagepaid Member Posts: 2,777 Arc User
    Depends on the carrier and what pets it can use. Cannon pets are pretty inept as are the dual beams since pets don't seem to know about strafing runs.

    Wondering if they'll be poking the pets & commands again at somepoint. I was in the badlands earlier for an endeavour and despite being docked, half my pets despawned moving between the stations at the end section and those that didn't refused to deploy.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,377 Arc User
    jagdtier44 wrote: »
    I don't really see the issue, most real carriers are sci focused and toss out that lovely space magic along with 2 flights of usually frigates. FDCs are engi focused which is already lackluster in our DPS focused game and adding another hanger to them isn't putting existing carriers out of a home

    Depends what you define as being 'lackluster' really.


  • stolokstolok Member Posts: 76 Arc User
    I have to agree that Carriers are not obsoleted by these changes because most of the "full" Carriers are more science oriented. The convention is to give them the system-targeting abilities of science ships, for example. They could compensate for the boost to flight-deck cruisers by giving the original carriers sensor analysis. Allow them to mount the secondary deflector and they become true science ships.

    But then, of course, people would ask "Why fly plain old science ships"? Well, in the real world the huge size of carriers not only makes them slow and ponderous in maneuvering, but very expensive. This is the missing element in the game. We have no ties to economic reality.

    But honestly, ALL carriers should have only three fore and aft weapon slots, even the flight-deck cruisers, and they should live up to the reasons the epithet "aircraft carrier" means something gigantic and slow. They should be even slower than they are now, probably should not be allowed to mount cannons at all except turrets, and they should rely mostly on their pets to do damage. These are the real world disadvantages of ships big enough to carry other ships.
  • echattyechatty Member Posts: 5,534 Arc User
    stolok wrote: »
    probably should not be allowed to mount cannons at all except turrets

    And single cannons. All ships can mount turrets/single cannons.
    Now a LTS and loving it.

    Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.

    xp8s7wd.jpg
  • stolokstolok Member Posts: 76 Arc User
    Not, NOT single cannons. This is the point I am making. A "carrier" carries other ships. It is full of equipment designed to maintain, repair, launch, and recover those other ships. It doesn't have much room for other functions.

    But then, that was the point of the "flight-deck cruisers" -- they were supposed to be hybrids with half as much hangar capacity and so a bit more space for weapons. Hmm, this revamp is looking more and more like a bad idea.
  • trekkiejedigirl#9564 trekkiejedigirl Member Posts: 144 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    stolok wrote: »
    But honestly, ALL carriers should have only three fore and aft weapon slots, even the flight-deck cruisers, and they should live up to the reasons the epithet "aircraft carrier" means something gigantic and slow. They should be even slower than they are now, probably should not be allowed to mount cannons at all except turrets, and they should rely mostly on their pets to do damage. These are the real world disadvantages of ships big enough to carry other ships.

    As someone who flies mostly carriers, and given the fact we're talking about a science fiction game here I have to disagree. We're not talking about "real world" aircraft carriers here that float on oceans. We're talking about ships that fly in outer space - a vacum where there is no wind resistance or water resistance to slow them down. We're also talking about 300 to 400 years worth of technological advances not to mention other races beside humans who have traveled the stars long before humans did - all hypothetically of course.

    And as a note here, I do mostly rely on my carriers's "pets" to do most of the damage while fighting with them and build my ships and upgrade my pets accordingly. It's just, IMHO that is, comparing an interstellar space craft no matter it's size or capabilities to an aircraft carrier built on 20th century Earth even one retrofitted with 21st century technology is a little like comparing that same aircraft carrier to a Spanish Galleon or other large sailing vessel of the late 1700's. IMHO that is. :)

    OH and, all my carriers are Gunships, lol Dual cannon fitted with turrets in the rear a long with mines sometimes with missiles a long with those forward dual cannons. Yes, I do sacrifice some survivability for maneuverability but hey, it comes with the territory. I can make my T6 Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carriers turn like an escort, lol. ;)
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    Pretty much ALL ships carry at least some shuttles in canon.
  • lordmerc22lordmerc22 Member Posts: 776 Arc User
    stolok wrote: »
    But honestly, ALL carriers should have only three fore and aft weapon slots, even the flight-deck cruisers, and they should live up to the reasons the epithet "aircraft carrier" means something gigantic and slow. They should be even slower than they are now, probably should not be allowed to mount cannons at all except turrets, and they should rely mostly on their pets to do damage. These are the real world disadvantages of ships big enough to carry other ships.

    As someone who flies mostly carriers, and given the fact we're talking about a science fiction game here I have to disagree. We're not talking about "real world" aircraft carriers here that float on oceans. We're talking about ships that fly in outer space - a vacum where there is no wind resistance or water resistance to slow them down. We're also talking about 300 to 400 years worth of technological advances not to mention other races beside humans who have traveled the stars long before humans did - all hypothetically of course.

    And as a note here, I do mostly rely on my carriers's "pets" to do most of the damage while fighting with them and build my ships and upgrade my pets accordingly. It's just, IMHO that is, comparing an interstellar space craft no matter it's size or capabilities to an aircraft carrier built on 20th century Earth even one retrofitted with 21st century technology is a little like comparing that same aircraft carrier to a Spanish Galleon or other large sailing vessel of the late 1700's. IMHO that is. :)

    OH and, all my carriers are Gunships, lol Dual cannon fitted with turrets in the rear a long with mines sometimes with missiles a long with those forward dual cannons. Yes, I do sacrifice some survivability for maneuverability but hey, it comes with the territory. I can make my T6 Jem'Hadar Dreadnought Carriers turn like an escort, lol. ;)

    Use this when evasive manoeuvers are on CD:

    https://sto.gamepedia.com/Ability:_Auxiliary_to_Inertial_Dampers

    When I want I got no difficulty turning carriers fast enough

    I do also like to place the disco eng console that has 40% turn rate and crit chance
  • trekkiejedigirl#9564 trekkiejedigirl Member Posts: 144 Arc User
    lordmerc22 wrote: »

    Use this when evasive manoeuvers are on CD:

    https://sto.gamepedia.com/Ability:_Auxiliary_to_Inertial_Dampers

    When I want I got no difficulty turning carriers fast enough

    I do also like to place the disco eng console that has 40% turn rate and crit chance

    Thank you. I already use AID but I haven't tried the Disco Eng Console yet. I'll have to give it a shot, so to speak. :)
  • annemarie30annemarie30 Member Posts: 1,996 Arc User
    the thing I really don't like is how devalued pure science ships are now. why would anyone wantt o fly a Nebula or Intrepid at this point? there are far more powerful ships out there now. about the only way you could make them viable is to severely cut the shared cooldowns, to allow overlap on gravity wells, or overhaul GW and TR to be a LOT more powerful.. with the secondary deflector there should be no reason not to toss out a GW and a TR at the same time.
    giphy.gif
    We Want Vic Fontaine
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 53,032 Community Moderator
    about the only way you could make them viable is to severely cut the shared cooldowns, to allow overlap on gravity wells...

    There is a way to have 100% up time on Gravity Well already. The Allied Science Pilot Escort comes with the Enhanced Gravity Well trait, which extends the duration of Gravity Well.
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,476 Arc User
    tobiashirt wrote: »
    To my sensibilities, the easiest way to make 'true' carriers/classic carriers distinct and offset the flight deck changes would be a third hangar. The amount of lag this could lead to or some rewiring needed to make a third hangar work may be why it isn't here yet.

    Well so far we've survived the spawnfest that the Discovery Connie/D7 can do...third hangar using all fighters would still be less unless someone were using 3 of the attack fighters.
    #WithoutRespectWeReject
  • nixie50nixie50 Member Posts: 750 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    hmmm 18 scorpions firing HYT plasma torpedos... that will ruin a day. so would 6 Callistos or BoPs
    80d.gif
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 53,032 Community Moderator
    18 Elite Slavers stealing stuff...
    300?cb=20130514003441
    All those beams...
    66998372863950ee98cf7da9786e2ea9-db80k0m.png
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out a Delta Pack, Temporal Pack, and Gamma Pack
    The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,062 Arc User
    lianthelia wrote: »
    tobiashirt wrote: »
    To my sensibilities, the easiest way to make 'true' carriers/classic carriers distinct and offset the flight deck changes would be a third hangar. The amount of lag this could lead to or some rewiring needed to make a third hangar work may be why it isn't here yet.

    Well so far we've survived the spawnfest that the Discovery Connie/D7 can do...third hangar using all fighters would still be less unless someone were using 3 of the attack fighters.

    The Connie/D7 pets don't take any more AI then a standard carrier, AI wise they're grouped together in groups of 6 to make sure they don't cause any extra lag. I am sure something similar could be done if they wanted to add more hangars in the future. The Discoprise/D7 shows that the they can do much more should the choose to.

    Overall, I don't know if it's the best idea.. I would rather see full carriers get additional weapon slots and the addition of another mechanic to make them special. Slapping a 3rd hangar on them while in spirit with what they are, just seems silly to me for some reason.
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,292 Arc User
    But when two Hangers of Tactical Flyers fire with SAD, it reminds me of the anti aircraft screen shooting at a Kamikaze. Glorious, just glorious. :)
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,817 Arc User
    I think sci carriers need to be tweaked. But I also think its time for Supercarriers and that would be a great way to reintroduce the Voq'ue.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,415 Arc User
    the thing I really don't like is how devalued pure science ships are now. why would anyone wantt o fly a Nebula or Intrepid at this point? there are far more powerful ships out there now. about the only way you could make them viable is to severely cut the shared cooldowns, to allow overlap on gravity wells, or overhaul GW and TR to be a LOT more powerful.. with the secondary deflector there should be no reason not to toss out a GW and a TR at the same time.

    I main a Nebula. Because I don't care about what the "most powerful" is, since I am not competing with anyone. There will always be a best ship, and then the next and then the next. But why chase that? To do the same three TFOs over and over again, slightly faster?​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,104 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    angrytarg wrote: »
    the thing I really don't like is how devalued pure science ships are now. why would anyone wantt o fly a Nebula or Intrepid at this point? there are far more powerful ships out there now. about the only way you could make them viable is to severely cut the shared cooldowns, to allow overlap on gravity wells, or overhaul GW and TR to be a LOT more powerful.. with the secondary deflector there should be no reason not to toss out a GW and a TR at the same time.

    I main a Nebula. Because I don't care about what the "most powerful" is, since I am not competing with anyone. There will always be a best ship, and then the next and then the next. But why chase that? To do the same three TFOs over and over again, slightly faster?​​

    probably because you have not faced what casual players face, the inevitable comments about" the nOOb" in TFOs "so now i have to pick up thier slack" comments. and agree that sci ships need a facelift. IMHO a Lcdr tac slot should be on EVERY starship with fewer that 8 weapons. a revamp of Viral Matrix would be a very welcome addition as well, as well as the ability to combo powers. A TR dropped in a GW would be devastating.
    Spock.jpg

  • stolokstolok Member Posts: 76 Arc User
    Maybe the "full" carriers don't need more hangars, maybe they just need an innate ability to launch a wing or two of "swarm" style pets like those Tactical Flyer Squadrons. This would satisfy the need for a feeling of scale, at least. They could default to the faction appropriate weapon types, basically as if they were Peregrines for Feds, To'duj for Klingons, etc. This way the existing hangars would just be a way to customize your carrier for special purposes. I suspect that would be simpler to implement than adding 1 or 2 more hangar slots that players would then install with more custom pets.
Sign In or Register to comment.