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
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
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.
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.
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]
'...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
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
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.
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
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
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?
^ 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
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.
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.
Comments
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
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]
https://youtu.be/q0POXW4V1_k
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
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.
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.
And single cannons. All ships can mount turrets/single cannons.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
All those beams...
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.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
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?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
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.