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.)
Gonna have to agree with all of this.
Player made content always ends up backfiring, and then needing to be nerfed into the ground.
It's not content, it's a ship. What was the relationship between the Foundry and power gaming? Player made content wasn't nerfed, support for it was discontinued.
Yeah I'm gonna say "no" to adding hangars to any ship you want them (power creep for its own sake is never a good idea) and any "build your own starship" system that gave actual power is a no-go also (and a cosmetic system would probably run into issues with CBS anyway).
Hell there's no lore reason for adding hangars to every ship, hangars aren't the same thing as shuttlebays, hangars meant to house and operate squadrons of attack craft take a lot more space then a simple shuttlebay and storage hangar as you'll need cargo space for fuel, munitions and spare parts for the fighters, space to house and brief your pilots (unless you use drones), repair bays and storage for craft not in use.
To give some perspective (thru the "other franchise") the Venator-class Stardestroyer that had carrier focus as the standard compliment carried only 19 squadrons of 12 craft each (split between 16 V-wing (or a mix of Z-95s and Y-wings later in the Clone Wars) and 3 ARC-170 Squadrons) and that's with 1.137 km ship that's carrier focused (the classical ISD has only 6 squadrons of various types of TIEs) in a franchise that's way more small craft focused then Star Trek. Your typical Trek "fighter" would around the same size as the ARC-170s and would likely take up as much space both literally and in logistics.
And as others have pointed out this would really not anything useful gameplay wise either.
You come across as a very bitter and biased player at times. Cheers for the selective quote also.
I'm not sure what about that would seem bitter. It was a rather eye rolling question, so I give it a sarcastic response fitting of it. That isn't bitter, its being sarcastic.
As for "selective quoting" You asked what part of the Foundry was power gaming, and I answered it. In the process, I also mentioned how Cryptic had to nerf Foundry rewards because of how it was being abused, debunking the latter part of your post about it not being nerfed. Your whole comment was responded to in the post I made.
There isn't a need to quote every single part of every single post. That just leads to ever increasingly large quote walls the more responses get added.
I'm amused the rather poor attempt to deflect from the actual topic at hand. Really goes to show you had no actual counterpoint.
I remember the multi-year span where Cryptic had to keep changing the foundry reward structure because a small section of the playerbase would find a expliot and hammer it ruthlessly. Each time Cryptic changed something cause they had to, a section of the forums would explode in rage over the 'nerf'.
I am not sure if you might remember Somtaawkhar, but i think the first change was because of the three console clicky foundry missions way back in the day.
Anway, as to the OP's idea. Ummmm, let me think. Heck no!
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.
A fun little program maybe but not a valid enough reason something similar should be done here.
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)
The game you're referring to is World of Tanks. For your example you're so far off base that you're not even in the same reality as the rest of us.
It's not often that I'm legitimately stunned at such a flawed argument these days, but you managed to just that. Getting a new tank slot is NOT the same thing as gaining a hangar in STO. The tank slots in World of Tanks are the same thing as active ship slots in STO. All they do is allow you to own additional tanks or ships. Otherwise they have no effect on the tanks or ships. Saying that gaining a tank slot in WoT is the same as gaining a hangar in STO is like saying gaining a character slot automatically makes you a better player because you have more toons. So no World of Tanks does not add new "hangars" to ships.
Adding a hangar in STO would allow ships to deploy attack craft where they otherwise couldn't before. This is going to add additional damage potential to a ship that wasn't there before, and will directly increase power creep.
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.
If I unlock a T6X upgrade on a ship, it's bound to that ship regardless already. This is already done with any kind of upgrade. If I upgrade a Gal-X it doesn't magically transfer to a Defiant should I dry dock the ship or similar.
As for adding a secondary deflector to different ships, that's essentially what's being asked for here, additional slots on a ship that will grant additional damage potential for the sake of wanting extra power creep. It's a desire for power creep without rime or reason.
OP, don't listen to all the Debbie Downers, they hate every idea they didn't come up with.
Every ship that had a shuttle bay in the series should have a shuttle bay in game. End discussion.
I really hate the mentality that folks can't have a legitimate reason for disagreeing with other people without an automatic jump to them being a "debbie downer", noob, elitist, etc. It can't be that folks simply disagree for whatever reason, or that an idea is legitimately bad, no it must be some underlying unseen hatred for the other person because certainly none would ever disagree with their "bEsTeSt iDeA eVaR".
In this instance it's not people being "debbie downers" it's a legitimate bad idea that adds power creep for the sake of power creep, including to ships that never had full on hangars on screen in any of the Trek shows, or any other canon material. All ships in lore have a shuttle bay, but not all ships have a full on hangar. In real life having a dock to park a ship is not the same thing as having a full on shipyard. A dock often only allows the ship to park, take on fuel, unload/load passengers and cargo, perhaps make minor repairs. A full on shipyard can build/rebuild ships completely for the most part if they desired to do so or were needed.
In this instance, this is little more than power creep for the sake of power creep. Not every ship needs to be able to do everything, have all the latest bells and whistles, or so on in order to be a good ship. Power creep for the sake of power creep almost always backfires.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
I say this time and again that the devs focus on power creep and horizontal difficulty plane just makes it a worthless epeen chasing endeavour. Until they actually add in content that demands a player push their gear upgrading and creeping is just a matter of bragging rights or desire to blow through the gates of umpteen spawns at the same location as quick as you can. There's no challenge in any of the new content beyond fighting off a seizure due to the visual bombardment coming from the screen.
The mooky ships spawn and go pop almost instantly with mk12 gear so why do ships need moar powah? The last thing that was remotely close to a challenge was the first meeting with the hurq TRIBBLE-nibblers but that only lasted the first encounter for anyone with a mind to spot gimmicks.
Out of curiosity a question for the OP.
What hangar pets are you using that aren't so inept and broken that another bay of them would make life "better"? There's not that many pets that aren't broken as hell because the AI is at best belligerent or wonky.
What was the relationship between the Foundry and power gaming? Player made content wasn't nerfed, support for it was discontinued.
Long before the Foundry was discontinued, it went through several rounds of nerfs as to what you could put in a mission and what you could get (XP, loot) from Foundry missions.
Because, given the ability to, min-maxers would build the most efficient "farm" that they could.
I recall going into a mission from the "Popular" Foundry tab a long while back, where you started in your ship 20km away from a nebula. Inside the edge of that nebula was a tight cluster of a dozen battleships. That didn't attack you (they were on standby) and had no shields (they were in a nebula). All you had to do was destroy a couple, and the warp core breaches would destroy the rest. Instant battleship XP & loot drops. And when you were done picking up loot, you warped to the next 'map' of the mission... which was the same thing. The full mission was 10 repetitions of that.
OP, don't listen to all the Debbie Downers, they hate every idea they didn't come up with.
Every ship that had a shuttle bay in the series should have a shuttle bay in game. End discussion.
And then the game should be balanced around that and any other missing logic in the game to actually make it the best star trek game possible. It's the correct way to make the game. And if done right would make the game a lot more fun. So many things are missing from the game. What happened to cargo. Or trade. We have some elements for it. Why not make unique cargo per ship and then add some way to trade larger volumes of goods. It's not like trade goods make any serious money anymore. Even at current prices just jack up volume and have fun. And integrate some of our personal inventory into it or make something that makes items use up different inventory/cargo space a real thing. Lots more dynamics. Same for shuttle bays. Lots of RPG logic missing. If you add enough you don't even have to change the game much. It should apply it's own counters. If not the game needs to be adjusted to be realistic and make the game more interesting. It's never too late to fix things and make it the best it can be. If the servers are the problem, outside of corona, they should get cheaper over time. They could just work out logic and wait for computers to drop in price or the rental to get cheaper.
One major are for shuttle restriction revolve around shuttle destruction and if they could be remade with replicators. If older ones couldn't then you have some perma shuttle death. If they could you have issues around size and how quickly they could or what methods they used to do so. NOt sure if the fiction hashed this out. Depends on the energy sources used and where the materials came from. If it's from the warpcore and it's fast you have to deal with how much it takes materials from the core. If not you still have to deal with that and then if it pre stores extra premade shuttle material in a partial manner for faster replication or similar. This could all be hashed out with potential info about how the ships worked. Or a simple system could be worked out in different ships for different classes. Then a multilayered system of resources and limits can be made simply. YOu have x shuttle in your bay already. they go boom. You then take so long to make a new one(this is the current system basically.) The you apply specific hp bars of material to the entire setup. One for the warpcore and one for any material storage or odd things taht might be needed. Add in as much realism as possible and you have a very organic system of limits. Base it all on real presumed physics and walla! if you thought out each species tech it might even give realistic ideas as to who would have had what tech focus and accessories.
BTW, older games are the best one sto hash this sort of thing out in as the graphics are lighter and the work overall should be easier as it's not bleeding edge.
Most of such changes for this game would be building down and then getting the correct logic to future proof it. Which is the same as making it realistic so you can add any layer of changes and have the same balance later.
What was the relationship between the Foundry and power gaming? Player made content wasn't nerfed, support for it was discontinued.
Long before the Foundry was discontinued, it went through several rounds of nerfs as to what you could put in a mission and what you could get (XP, loot) from Foundry missions.
Because, given the ability to, min-maxers would build the most efficient "farm" that they could.
I recall going into a mission from the "Popular" Foundry tab a long while back, where you started in your ship 20km away from a nebula. Inside the edge of that nebula was a tight cluster of a dozen battleships. That didn't attack you (they were on standby) and had no shields (they were in a nebula). All you had to do was destroy a couple, and the warp core breaches would destroy the rest. Instant battleship XP & loot drops. And when you were done picking up loot, you warped to the next 'map' of the mission... which was the same thing. The full mission was 10 repetitions of that.
I'm aware of those foundry missions and some of the adjustments that were made because of them.
I'm not so sure if something designed by developers such as "build your own ship" can be compared to the foundry as ship's aren't content and BYOS isn't in my mind something that would be player made but more of a variation on T6X (i.e. more about choices).
I'm also wary of terms such as power gamer, dps'r, and min-maxer, due to the potential negative connotations attached to them.
While we may come to different conclusions about what's connected to what and look at things in different ways, I do appreciate you trying to fill in some history so thanks for that.
Nope. Too many fighters and TRIBBLE in the game as it is.
this, and not all ships had hangars capable of accommodating fighters, only shuttlecraft, plus they're not canon
We had fighters (or at least ships called that on-screen) in DS9 (oh and there's the Scorpion fighters in Nemesis as well), so regardless how you feel about Trek made post 2005 the existence of space fighters is canon. So by extension that suggests there's craft capable of operating hangars meant for Starfighters what those ships (besides the Scimitar) are we don't know. Still Starfighters in Trek aren't something invented for season 2 of Discovery
That said there's limits lore wise, as I outline in my previous post hangar meant to operate attack craft takes a lot more room as then one meant store shuttles when not in use. It's the same reasons why large modern cruisers or destroyers don't have squadrons of attack helicopters even though they got helicopter hangars (those hangars are of the storage type and even there have room for only a handful of craft).
Now technically any launch bay capable of launching shuttles should be able to launch fighters, however the issues isn't launching it's all the other logistical stuff that comes with operating starfighters.
I always thought that your ship should be able to launch a shuttle. Not your actual shuttle, with its better build, but just a shuttle as a support. A bit like how the Intrepid/Pathfinder could launch the Aeroshuttle. And of course, we know that the Nova has its own Aeroshuttle or type, because it doesn't have a shuttlebay, but was proved in Equinox that it had a shuttle.
I'm not even going to mention that the DSC Enterprise had over a hundred shuttles as support, even though the ship couldn't possibly have held that many.
I seem remember that combinied small craft launched for both Enterprise and Discovery was less then 100, still a lot though nowhere close to "hundreds".
While it makes sense for most ships to have shuttlebays/hangars in-universe, most of the time they don't hold craft that is up to combat.
Usually shuttles are for personnell doing AFK-missions while the mothership does other things, as ferries for officers/crewmembers/guests when transporters aren't that feasible or even an option (like officers doing recreational stuff as evidenced by Worf going to his little battle-tournament or Geordi going to Risa).
Then there are workbees and other utility-vehicles.
Fighters.... have been a rare thing in-universe canonically, it's far more common to have small ships going on patrols. Romulans even used the D'D for just about everything.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I'm not so sure if something designed by developers such as "build your own ship" can be compared to the foundry as ship's aren't content and BYOS isn't in my mind something that would be player made but more of a variation on T6X (i.e. more about choices).
Eh, I won't get in an argument about the exact definition of "content".
But ship layout/slots/abilities/etc is a major factor in gameplay & combat balance. Being able to customize a ship / give it Moar Power™, is definitely a big issue.
And "Build Your Own Ship" definitely is more foundry-like/player-made than a simple T6X or "add a hangar" function. At least the vision I get from hearing that phrase. I wouldn't label a T6X-esque "add a ____ slot" function as BYOS. It implies a great deal more customization than that.
I'm not so sure if something designed by developers such as "build your own ship" can be compared to the foundry as ship's aren't content and BYOS isn't in my mind something that would be player made but more of a variation on T6X (i.e. more about choices).
But ship layout/slots/abilities/etc is a major factor in gameplay & combat balance. Being able to customize a ship / give it Moar Power™, is definitely a big issue.
Even without ship customization the game has an incredibly wide (huge, actually) variation with respect to performance. This does seem to be an issue for some. Perhaps there's also people who'd want to customize a ship for reasons that have nothing to do with performance.
And "Build Your Own Ship" definitely is more foundry-like/player-made than a simple T6X or "add a hangar" function. At least the vision I get from hearing that phrase. I wouldn't label a T6X-esque "add a ____ slot" function as BYOS. It implies a great deal more customization than that.
Interpretation of an open concept will certainly vary.
OP, don't listen to all the Debbie Downers, they hate every idea they didn't come up with.
Every ship that had a shuttle bay in the series should have a shuttle bay in game. End discussion.
I'm a female in RL and in game and i'm not too thrilled with this comment. The term "Debbie Downers" seems sexist to me. That being said, I've been playing since release and tho I mostly play Romulans I do mostly fly Carriers. The Jem'Hadar dreadnought Carrier especially in T6 form (when I can get them) and I build them accordingly. A Carriers strength is in what attack crafts it's carrying so when i'm say leveling and flying something else I build it accordingly. Yes, I do have a lot of experience doing this but you build a ship focusing on it's strength's, Not on it's weaknesses.
I'm not sure I agree with this 'Add a hangar' function and carriers are my thing. Just IMHO that is.
While it makes sense for most ships to have shuttlebays/hangars in-universe, most of the time they don't hold craft that is up to combat.
Usually shuttles are for personnell doing AFK-missions while the mothership does other things, as ferries for officers/crewmembers/guests when transporters aren't that feasible or even an option (like officers doing recreational stuff as evidenced by Worf going to his little battle-tournament or Geordi going to Risa).
Then there are workbees and other utility-vehicles.
Fighters.... have been a rare thing in-universe canonically, it's far more common to have small ships going on patrols. Romulans even used the D'D for just about everything.
Yea I'd love to see little workbea's whose focus is to heal ship shields or hull, perhaps little deployable drones as a Device. I'm surprised we haven't seen an Event, or even offer to add that type of Device to CSTORE as non combat healer, focused on helping to keep the ship mobile and engagement ready.
While it makes sense for most ships to have shuttlebays/hangars in-universe, most of the time they don't hold craft that is up to combat.
Usually shuttles are for personnell doing AFK-missions while the mothership does other things, as ferries for officers/crewmembers/guests when transporters aren't that feasible or even an option (like officers doing recreational stuff as evidenced by Worf going to his little battle-tournament or Geordi going to Risa).
Then there are workbees and other utility-vehicles.
Fighters.... have been a rare thing in-universe canonically, it's far more common to have small ships going on patrols. Romulans even used the D'D for just about everything.
Yea I'd love to see little workbea's whose focus is to heal ship shields or hull, perhaps little deployable drones as a Device. I'm surprised we haven't seen an Event, or even offer to add that type of Device to CSTORE as non combat healer, focused on helping to keep the ship mobile and engagement ready.
Nope. Too many fighters and TRIBBLE in the game as it is.
this, and not all ships had hangars capable of accommodating fighters, only shuttlecraft, plus they're not canon
Or they only have access to shuttles. And the shuttles have very long respawns that go past the time a battle would last. Make it realistic for the show. Then you can use it but only in a limited way. Assuming replicators couldn't make them fast enough.
What if any general shuttle bay has a respawn timer of 5 minutes like space trait abilities. So, any ship not specifically supporting can only have shuttles and a massive timer attached. Or can have any appropriate hanger pet and a base 5 minute respawn. This could be applied by giving it a shuttle bay or two and having it ships stats include a negative bonus of around +400-700% to shuttle bay timers. I forget the default timer on shuttles. Edit: at 40 second default timer that would be +650% respawn time to get 5 minutes.
Nope. Too many fighters and TRIBBLE in the game as it is.
this, and not all ships had hangars capable of accommodating fighters, only shuttlecraft, plus they're not canon
Or they only have access to shuttles. And the shuttles have very long respawns that go past the time a battle would last. Make it realistic for the show. Then you can use it but only in a limited way. Assuming replicators couldn't make them fast enough.
What if any general shuttle bay has a respawn timer of 5 minutes like space trait abilities. So, any ship not specifically supporting can only have shuttles and a massive timer attached. Or can have any appropriate hanger pet and a base 5 minute respawn. This could be applied by giving it a shuttle bay or two and having it ships stats include a negative bonus of around -400-700% to shuttle bay timers. I forget the default timer on shuttles.
Frankly, this would be practically useless. With the rate at which the run of the mill shuttles get destroyed, you would have one wing of shuttles for about 20 seconds in any real battle.
If they took that approach they could also start allowing shuttles to be customized equipment wise to compensate. Maybe in a limited capacity at first. There could be a special mark required on equipment to be equitable on hanger pets as opposed to player shuttles to limit use of equipment. Like say it requires that shuttle only equipment be used as opposed to shuttles that can use shuttle and player equipment. Then normal shuttles have a benefit over carrier pets. and they could add better equipment or make equipment out of the existing hanger pets to upgrade and swap out. Then you could get higher tanked shuttles and then upgrade the equipment with the upgrade system and install more items. The higher ranked hanger pets could have more slots to allow more weapons. Or just come default with more items and abilities. You could also start allowing boffs to be applied to the hanger pets just like shuttles.
Comments
Hell there's no lore reason for adding hangars to every ship, hangars aren't the same thing as shuttlebays, hangars meant to house and operate squadrons of attack craft take a lot more space then a simple shuttlebay and storage hangar as you'll need cargo space for fuel, munitions and spare parts for the fighters, space to house and brief your pilots (unless you use drones), repair bays and storage for craft not in use.
To give some perspective (thru the "other franchise") the Venator-class Stardestroyer that had carrier focus as the standard compliment carried only 19 squadrons of 12 craft each (split between 16 V-wing (or a mix of Z-95s and Y-wings later in the Clone Wars) and 3 ARC-170 Squadrons) and that's with 1.137 km ship that's carrier focused (the classical ISD has only 6 squadrons of various types of TIEs) in a franchise that's way more small craft focused then Star Trek. Your typical Trek "fighter" would around the same size as the ARC-170s and would likely take up as much space both literally and in logistics.
And as others have pointed out this would really not anything useful gameplay wise either.
Every ship that had a shuttle bay in the series should have a shuttle bay in game. End discussion.
I remember the multi-year span where Cryptic had to keep changing the foundry reward structure because a small section of the playerbase would find a expliot and hammer it ruthlessly. Each time Cryptic changed something cause they had to, a section of the forums would explode in rage over the 'nerf'.
I am not sure if you might remember Somtaawkhar, but i think the first change was because of the three console clicky foundry missions way back in the day.
Anway, as to the OP's idea. Ummmm, let me think. Heck no!
A fun little program maybe but not a valid enough reason something similar should be done here.
The game you're referring to is World of Tanks. For your example you're so far off base that you're not even in the same reality as the rest of us.
It's not often that I'm legitimately stunned at such a flawed argument these days, but you managed to just that. Getting a new tank slot is NOT the same thing as gaining a hangar in STO. The tank slots in World of Tanks are the same thing as active ship slots in STO. All they do is allow you to own additional tanks or ships. Otherwise they have no effect on the tanks or ships. Saying that gaining a tank slot in WoT is the same as gaining a hangar in STO is like saying gaining a character slot automatically makes you a better player because you have more toons. So no World of Tanks does not add new "hangars" to ships.
Adding a hangar in STO would allow ships to deploy attack craft where they otherwise couldn't before. This is going to add additional damage potential to a ship that wasn't there before, and will directly increase power creep.
If I unlock a T6X upgrade on a ship, it's bound to that ship regardless already. This is already done with any kind of upgrade. If I upgrade a Gal-X it doesn't magically transfer to a Defiant should I dry dock the ship or similar.
As for adding a secondary deflector to different ships, that's essentially what's being asked for here, additional slots on a ship that will grant additional damage potential for the sake of wanting extra power creep. It's a desire for power creep without rime or reason.
I really hate the mentality that folks can't have a legitimate reason for disagreeing with other people without an automatic jump to them being a "debbie downer", noob, elitist, etc. It can't be that folks simply disagree for whatever reason, or that an idea is legitimately bad, no it must be some underlying unseen hatred for the other person because certainly none would ever disagree with their "bEsTeSt iDeA eVaR".
In this instance it's not people being "debbie downers" it's a legitimate bad idea that adds power creep for the sake of power creep, including to ships that never had full on hangars on screen in any of the Trek shows, or any other canon material. All ships in lore have a shuttle bay, but not all ships have a full on hangar. In real life having a dock to park a ship is not the same thing as having a full on shipyard. A dock often only allows the ship to park, take on fuel, unload/load passengers and cargo, perhaps make minor repairs. A full on shipyard can build/rebuild ships completely for the most part if they desired to do so or were needed.
In this instance, this is little more than power creep for the sake of power creep. Not every ship needs to be able to do everything, have all the latest bells and whistles, or so on in order to be a good ship. Power creep for the sake of power creep almost always backfires.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
The mooky ships spawn and go pop almost instantly with mk12 gear so why do ships need moar powah? The last thing that was remotely close to a challenge was the first meeting with the hurq TRIBBLE-nibblers but that only lasted the first encounter for anyone with a mind to spot gimmicks.
Out of curiosity a question for the OP.
What hangar pets are you using that aren't so inept and broken that another bay of them would make life "better"? There's not that many pets that aren't broken as hell because the AI is at best belligerent or wonky.
Long before the Foundry was discontinued, it went through several rounds of nerfs as to what you could put in a mission and what you could get (XP, loot) from Foundry missions.
Because, given the ability to, min-maxers would build the most efficient "farm" that they could.
I recall going into a mission from the "Popular" Foundry tab a long while back, where you started in your ship 20km away from a nebula. Inside the edge of that nebula was a tight cluster of a dozen battleships. That didn't attack you (they were on standby) and had no shields (they were in a nebula). All you had to do was destroy a couple, and the warp core breaches would destroy the rest. Instant battleship XP & loot drops. And when you were done picking up loot, you warped to the next 'map' of the mission... which was the same thing. The full mission was 10 repetitions of that.
And then the game should be balanced around that and any other missing logic in the game to actually make it the best star trek game possible. It's the correct way to make the game. And if done right would make the game a lot more fun. So many things are missing from the game. What happened to cargo. Or trade. We have some elements for it. Why not make unique cargo per ship and then add some way to trade larger volumes of goods. It's not like trade goods make any serious money anymore. Even at current prices just jack up volume and have fun. And integrate some of our personal inventory into it or make something that makes items use up different inventory/cargo space a real thing. Lots more dynamics. Same for shuttle bays. Lots of RPG logic missing. If you add enough you don't even have to change the game much. It should apply it's own counters. If not the game needs to be adjusted to be realistic and make the game more interesting. It's never too late to fix things and make it the best it can be. If the servers are the problem, outside of corona, they should get cheaper over time. They could just work out logic and wait for computers to drop in price or the rental to get cheaper.
One major are for shuttle restriction revolve around shuttle destruction and if they could be remade with replicators. If older ones couldn't then you have some perma shuttle death. If they could you have issues around size and how quickly they could or what methods they used to do so. NOt sure if the fiction hashed this out. Depends on the energy sources used and where the materials came from. If it's from the warpcore and it's fast you have to deal with how much it takes materials from the core. If not you still have to deal with that and then if it pre stores extra premade shuttle material in a partial manner for faster replication or similar. This could all be hashed out with potential info about how the ships worked. Or a simple system could be worked out in different ships for different classes. Then a multilayered system of resources and limits can be made simply. YOu have x shuttle in your bay already. they go boom. You then take so long to make a new one(this is the current system basically.) The you apply specific hp bars of material to the entire setup. One for the warpcore and one for any material storage or odd things taht might be needed. Add in as much realism as possible and you have a very organic system of limits. Base it all on real presumed physics and walla! if you thought out each species tech it might even give realistic ideas as to who would have had what tech focus and accessories.
BTW, older games are the best one sto hash this sort of thing out in as the graphics are lighter and the work overall should be easier as it's not bleeding edge.
Most of such changes for this game would be building down and then getting the correct logic to future proof it. Which is the same as making it realistic so you can add any layer of changes and have the same balance later.
I'm not so sure if something designed by developers such as "build your own ship" can be compared to the foundry as ship's aren't content and BYOS isn't in my mind something that would be player made but more of a variation on T6X (i.e. more about choices).
I'm also wary of terms such as power gamer, dps'r, and min-maxer, due to the potential negative connotations attached to them.
While we may come to different conclusions about what's connected to what and look at things in different ways, I do appreciate you trying to fill in some history so thanks for that.
this, and not all ships had hangars capable of accommodating fighters, only shuttlecraft, plus they're not canon
aut vincere aut mori pro imperio
either to conquer or to die for the Empire
We had fighters (or at least ships called that on-screen) in DS9 (oh and there's the Scorpion fighters in Nemesis as well), so regardless how you feel about Trek made post 2005 the existence of space fighters is canon. So by extension that suggests there's craft capable of operating hangars meant for Starfighters what those ships (besides the Scimitar) are we don't know. Still Starfighters in Trek aren't something invented for season 2 of Discovery
That said there's limits lore wise, as I outline in my previous post hangar meant to operate attack craft takes a lot more room as then one meant store shuttles when not in use. It's the same reasons why large modern cruisers or destroyers don't have squadrons of attack helicopters even though they got helicopter hangars (those hangars are of the storage type and even there have room for only a handful of craft).
Now technically any launch bay capable of launching shuttles should be able to launch fighters, however the issues isn't launching it's all the other logistical stuff that comes with operating starfighters.
I'm not even going to mention that the DSC Enterprise had over a hundred shuttles as support, even though the ship couldn't possibly have held that many.
Usually shuttles are for personnell doing AFK-missions while the mothership does other things, as ferries for officers/crewmembers/guests when transporters aren't that feasible or even an option (like officers doing recreational stuff as evidenced by Worf going to his little battle-tournament or Geordi going to Risa).
Then there are workbees and other utility-vehicles.
Fighters.... have been a rare thing in-universe canonically, it's far more common to have small ships going on patrols. Romulans even used the D'D for just about everything.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Eh, I won't get in an argument about the exact definition of "content".
But ship layout/slots/abilities/etc is a major factor in gameplay & combat balance. Being able to customize a ship / give it Moar Power™, is definitely a big issue.
And "Build Your Own Ship" definitely is more foundry-like/player-made than a simple T6X or "add a hangar" function. At least the vision I get from hearing that phrase. I wouldn't label a T6X-esque "add a ____ slot" function as BYOS. It implies a great deal more customization than that.
Interpretation of an open concept will certainly vary.
I'm a female in RL and in game and i'm not too thrilled with this comment. The term "Debbie Downers" seems sexist to me. That being said, I've been playing since release and tho I mostly play Romulans I do mostly fly Carriers. The Jem'Hadar dreadnought Carrier especially in T6 form (when I can get them) and I build them accordingly. A Carriers strength is in what attack crafts it's carrying so when i'm say leveling and flying something else I build it accordingly. Yes, I do have a lot of experience doing this but you build a ship focusing on it's strength's, Not on it's weaknesses.
I'm not sure I agree with this 'Add a hangar' function and carriers are my thing. Just IMHO that is.
Yea I'd love to see little workbea's whose focus is to heal ship shields or hull, perhaps little deployable drones as a Device. I'm surprised we haven't seen an Event, or even offer to add that type of Device to CSTORE as non combat healer, focused on helping to keep the ship mobile and engagement ready.
Work bees are available via the console found on the T5 Science Odyssey Cruiser. The console only work on the Odyssey variants though. https://sto.fandom.com/wiki/Odyssey_Cruiser_Set#Console_-_Universal_-_Work_Bees
Or they only have access to shuttles. And the shuttles have very long respawns that go past the time a battle would last. Make it realistic for the show. Then you can use it but only in a limited way. Assuming replicators couldn't make them fast enough.
What if any general shuttle bay has a respawn timer of 5 minutes like space trait abilities. So, any ship not specifically supporting can only have shuttles and a massive timer attached. Or can have any appropriate hanger pet and a base 5 minute respawn. This could be applied by giving it a shuttle bay or two and having it ships stats include a negative bonus of around +400-700% to shuttle bay timers. I forget the default timer on shuttles. Edit: at 40 second default timer that would be +650% respawn time to get 5 minutes.
Frankly, this would be practically useless. With the rate at which the run of the mill shuttles get destroyed, you would have one wing of shuttles for about 20 seconds in any real battle.