test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
ADD HANGAR SLOT TO ANY SHIP
robzyon1
Member Posts: 7 Arc User
It would be nice to add a hangar slot to any ship like how we can add additional device, console and trait slot.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Different ship types should be different. The only ship type that deserves an extra hangar bay is the true carriers.
Not every thought that crosses one's mind is automatically a brilliant gem. Sometimes they're just rocks.
Currently you can have up to 5 carriers in a 5 person TFO and up to 10 carriers in a 10 person TFO. We already have pet spam.
Can you imagine having a ship with a hangar that is somehow darn near larger than the ship is? How about a ship that moves all it's naughty bits around and reconfigures itself in flight? We already have both of these in Star Trek.
Further ship customization may very well be an option in the future. It's refreshing to see such a variety of suggestions in the forums. Such vivid imaginations at work
Also, I was referring to grumpy old folks in a generic manner, not you specifically.
Likely wouldn't help the dead whale that is the jupiter but other carriers might.
I agree. I like this idea.
Personally, I'd want to see players being able to fly their favourite ship in whatever way they want. A Sovereign with pilot manoeuvres, a Miranda carrier, a miracle worker Shikaris... Just allow players to do with their ships whatever they want.
Of course, choices would still need to be made... adding a hangar bay should require sacrificing something else to keep things balanced.
We can heavily customise our ships already - and this 'fly your favourite ship' is a major selling point of the game. Expanding it would be a logical choice.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
They do this every time. One more console, one more trait, one more powerful lockbox ability. It won't stop.
And if it won't stop anyway, then we might as well give players more options in how they customise their ship.
But besides the point that we've always been on that slippery slope:
Having more options (being able to choose from more skills, features etc.) also need not mean that players get more of everything. There's an important difference there - take for instance the specialisation trees or starship traits. We get more options with every additional tree and every additional trait that is added to the game. But if they don't give us more slots, it need not result in 'more of everything' being active at the same time. We can still only have two spec trees active, despite having many more to choose from now. We can still have only 6 starship traits active at most - despite many more being added every couple of months.
Getting more options could be properly managed if having more options doesn't result in being able to have more things active at the same time. If adding a hangar bay became possible on a pilot escort - but only in exchange for disabling the pilot manoeuvres or a weapon slot or something like that (nobody would probably do that, but it's just an example) would mean that players get more options, without having more of everything active at the same time.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
In my opinion, size doesn't really matter.
A Defiant can carry as many or even more weapons compared to a much larger cruiser. Escorts can carry cannons but for some reason most cruisers cannot, while other types of cruisers can...
Size isn't actually a very good reason for most of the restrictions we have. Might as well remove them then.
Besides, size isn't very consistent either. Ships can vary in size depending on how you change them in the tailor. A Vesta for example, can have a significantly larger hull if you use certain parts. Its saucer can be broader or narrower. The same is true for many saucer parts of many other ships: the Sovereign, Oddysey, Nebula lines etc. all have more volume depending on how you build them.
It isn't too far-fetched to pretend that all that extra space gives room for another hangar bay. Or that a couple more thrusters have been attached to it (we even have some gear that add such visuals) to give it the option to perform special manoeuvres.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
Saying above, a coms array slot instead of a secondary deflector slot that boosts hangar pets is more likely a better option then a 3rd bay.
But then I think about the huge amount of power creep we've had, and how lately certain T6 ships just totally outperform many of the older t6 ships (and lets not even get started on how worthless T5-U's are now practically) that I want to kind of say yes.
It's the inconsistency of it all. This T6 cruiser comes with a single hangar, and a 4/4 weapon lay out, this cruiser only comes with a 4/4 layout and an extra console slot. This science ship comes with a 4/3 weapon layout, this one a 3/3 with two hangers, this one 3/3 with one hangar, and this one a 3/3 with no hangar and maybe an extra console slot.
So just do it like mentioned above. All cruisers are a 4/4 layout and the same amount of console slots. However, if you want a single console of the engineering type can be used as a hangar bay for shuttle size craft only. Sci ships get a 3/3 layout and two of their sci console slots can be used for shuttle sized craft. Carriers can get the similar treatment, but they get the luxury of two dedicated hangar slots that can launch frigate size craft and one or two of their console slots of any type can be used to launch shuttle sized craft (depending on balance.)
Battlecruisers and escorts can't use hangars at all, but they get to use cannon.
Don't get me wrong, I love my carriers and flight deck carriers, but I don't think hangar bays on any ship is a good idea. Too much power creep.
Otherwise, no, not sure that makes much sense from a balance point of view.
I think the OP might also be interested in the Beacon of Kahless.
Aren't those fighter devices one-use like batteries? Something like that is not very cost effective.
Allow all of them to have a slot, but limit it to certain types of ships. Let say the repair types and shuttle types. Then only very specific things can be used or only certain levels of them.
It's a perfectly good idea if you add limits. All ships had the ability to carry shuttles and limited sub ships. So, it's perfectly ok and they should have some ability to do so. But not all of them. they were not carriers and could only support certain things potentially. In fact they came default with shuttles.
All ship should get a limited single bay with shuttles. But be limited to which types they can employ. They could simply add limits to other carrier pets to limit this. then at worse you get normal shuttles or repair pets. And even those can be restricted for rp reasons.
BTW, this gives more reason to use anti shuttle skills. And could be a reason to make those things more common. Or just allow people to consider if they want to bother countering them or not. It's not like most of them are very strong.
You could even add in logic like the old crew stuff. you have so many shuttles. You can only employ so many before they are gone. Unless you can replicate them. Then you can add other limits if there are any.
You could also cross skills like fighter squads and Boarding party. The use of one can effect the other in some manner. If one of them uses x shuttles. You can only use y in the other skill. This could lead to lots of new playstyles and setups.
Boarding party could also take more shuttles the bigger the skill effect. The bonus could either represent better training of the crew, more shuttles being used for more crew, or a combo. Assuming there aren't other factors. So, potentially higher levels of the skill could use up more shuttles in your shuttle bay. and a long timer could exist to get more. This means the shuttle remake could be much higher for ships that aren't carriers. Carriers could be made to have much lower timers assuming they could produce/replicate more quickly or had more backups in the hanger bay. Combination of such factors could be added to add lots of variation and balance to different ships. And xeno ships could have even more variation or factors.
TLDR: All ships that had a hanger should/could have a hanger slot. The game can be changed to make this reasonable. At least from a pure design standpoint. The game should have started on this premise.
In fact the above factors and new limitations could allow combat hanger pets to finally have the reason/need to be customizable just like player controlled shuttles. If ships on average(outside of very special tech) can't infinitely spam shuttles then there is a reason to make them stronger and put work into increasing their equipment.
You could connect the to equipment to more quickly replicate also. Else the timer to replicate could be past any reasonable battle time. If you have specialized equipment it could be limited to certain shuttles and resources. else some realistic power limit in the ship. Or some limit to the replicators. there are probably some limits in the fiction or presumed real world physics to use as a limiter. You could then also force resources to be carried in a cargo by or similar to be used to more quickly produce the ships. Lets say replicators can only do certain materials so fast. So having certain elements stored in solid form could be used to speed up the creation of a new shuttle. This could be used as a balance factor. Then the stored materials could be refilled as it's used. either via buying new or replicating it. Replicating larger elements could take longer. And it would use some fuel somewhere in the ship or it's reactor(s). This could then be refilled in a multi layered system to control replicator tech. This detailing could eventually lead to unique tech for other reasons like quality of the tech or alien tech of various sorts. Different materials could allow similar shuttles to be made. But if a larger element is missing it could still take longer. This could also limit all shuttle using abilities realistically.
They could also change how boarding party works. It could be more realistic or have a longer timer. And instead of stopping the ability outright. Any counters stop it temporarily. Until the crew send in either are killed or maybe the ship beams them back or they retreat. Those type of options could add more play to the game.
Except that it's not a good idea. Unless they start doing a build your own starship kind of thing, I see this as little more than a want for more power creep. Again not every ship is meant to be able to do everything under the sun. Furthermore most of the ships don't need hangars either.
Next if this is adding a hangar similar to how the T6X tokens added a console, then the hangar slot by definition would have to be universal. Otherwise if there are a ton of restrictions to it, why use it? If I'm going to be able to add a hangar to every ship similar to the T6X tokens, I better be able to use whatever I want or it's a no go from me since that defeats the purpose of adding the hangar to start with. If you want to limit yourself for RP reasons as to what you put in there, then by all means. Otherwise I don't see RP reasons as a valid reason why myself or others who have no interest in RP should be restricted based on those reasons.
As for the anti-shuttle skills, we already have those, I can throw out a grav well and unless I deliberately fly into the group of shuttles i'll never get boarded. I can also shoot them down before they ever get to me with a basic FAW cycle. It's not going to change anything from what we have now. Lastly on this point for this block of quotation, if they're not going to be that strong, why bother adding the hangar in the first place? As a tank if I can get more out of my consoles for healing and threat, why would I bother with inferior pets? I'm sure the dedicated DPS crowd on here would have the same questions from their perspective if the pets aren't going to be that strong.
I don't believe you've thought this through as much as you believe. The old crew mechanics were removed for a reason, and adding them back would be a step backwards at this point in the game's life. The old crew mechanic used to be tied to how quickly your ship could repair itself, and in some instances was required to launch pets and similar. If your crew had been killed off or knocked out, then it bricked most abilities dealing with pets at all, or made them extremely weak. Since in the average fight it wouldn't be long before your entire crew was knocked out, it actually ended up being a nerf to ship healing more than it ever was a buff. The only way to keep your crew up was to invest into keeping them up, but that required alot of console space and abilities to be used for very little gain in return, so most folks suffered the debuff to their healing. Overall it added nothing of value while being a punishment 99% of the time. I'm sure some of the other forumites who played during that era can give some more specific examples but you get the idea.
In terms of having only so many pets, while it makes sense from a real world perspective, game wise it makes no sense. Once someone runs out of pets that hangar is basically dead weight on the ship serving no purpose and becomes a wasted slot. You also severely underestimate how quickly fighters can be dealt with in today's game. This is basically adding complexity for the sake of complexity which is never a good thing. Also these "new" mechanics would have to be applied to existing hangars already which would be a huge nerf to already existing carriers. If anything carriers could use some buffs, not nerfs. As for the "if you use x you can only use y in the other slot" all that's going to do is cause a flame fest here on the forums that myself and the other mods would have to clean up, and get the devs raged at. You can't make people play with stuff they don't want to play with, as all they're going to do is quit the game. You can't make someone who loves escorts fly cruisers, you can't make a person who loves cruisers fly science ships, and you can't make a sci person fly tactical escorts. It's similar to trying to teach a pig to sing. It won't work and all it will do is annoy the pig.
They could change anything they wanted in this game given enough time, resources, and manpower, but it doesn't mean they should. To be perfectly blunt I see nothing reasonable about what you're suggesting here as it's little more than a new hangar bay with a ton of conditions on how it can be used. Furthermore it would make already existing hangars a nightmare to play and navigate with all your new restrictions. So again I see nothing reasonable about what you're suggesting.
As for boarding parties and similar, see above, the crew related stuff and similar was removed for a reason. Also pets are so easy to deal with that this would be alot of investment for very little return on their part.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
The Scorpion Fighter device has 50 charges, and each charge launches 3 fighters.
1) There was actually a program out there called Starship Creator over a decade + ago. If had rudimentry missions and really only thing that you enjoy is making up new ship classes from several different base models. The you could print out your ship with its specs and image of the ship.
2) Giving a hanger with a new ship actually is done in a tank game with world in front (can't remember if we can or cannot name any third party products currently available. Anyhow in this game when you buy a tank or they aware a tank they always include a hanger slot with it. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to get the new tanks as you would run out of room instantly almost. Now to counter the addition they don't add additional barracks slots. So you will reach a point where you have more crew than barrack slots and won't be able to move crews around (plz note this is just keep it at a very simplistic level so no attqck plz from players of that game)
3) Of course the game right now includes a purchase to increase the number of ship in either drydock (can't put anything on them and then ship slots. The drydock purchase is cheaper than new slots. I don't like it as I had to drain my dil on my account to give everyone new drydock and active ship slots due to all the ships from special events and anniversaries and summer/winter events. It is disappointing to have to leave them in the bank. I still don't know for sure how the admiralty accounts for ships you get from promotions (common no cost) but then delete to make room for other ships (meaning if I delete the standard starting ship for example will it still be in the admiralty ships list or the Soverign class which takes you to I think tier 5 ships but is common so you should have it there around the time you get the access to admiralty missions, if you delete it after if it still is remains in the list of ships you can use on admiralty missions.
4) I would simply state that binding the ship to the slot is all we need to do. So if you open it you can have access but if you move it to dry dock the slot does not become available for any other ship or class. So the slot therefore if bound to a specific ship forever and doesn't increase your current number of "open" non-binding ship slots.
I don't see need to give free secondary deflectors dish or any other free stuff but it comes down to money. It is an item they can sell and instead of making a simple change we can't have all of ships outside the normal promotion system in dry dock or active ship slots and I don't know how it impacts of course the admiralty ship list.
Every previous attempt at "players make content" (STO's Foundry, CoH's custom missions, etc) has shown that given the chance, Power Gamers gonna Power Game. At which point the "custom content" feature gets watered down and watered down and watered down, until it's disappointing & useless for anything beyond RP.
This game already has a huge power gap between players. It doesn't need to give an even better way to make it worse.
(personally, a good "build your own ship" system would be a cosmetic one. Stick parts together to get the appearance you'd like. But that's because I care more about how what I'm flying looks than what bridge stations & weapon slots it has.)