test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Star Trek Online General Discussion
Options

surprised the Eisenberg isnt a carrier

whistlerdavidwhistlerdavid Member Posts: 416 Arc User
edited July 2023 in Star Trek Online General Discussion
that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
«1

Comments

  • Options
    psymantispsymantis Member Posts: 329 Arc User
    whistlerdavid wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    That's what she said.
  • Options
    djf021djf021 Member Posts: 1,379 Arc User
    > @psymantis said:
    > That's what she said.

    😆😆😆
    You already won this thread
    C4117709-1498929112732780large.jpg

    Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
    -Captain James T. Kirk
  • Options
    redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 1,297 Arc User
    whistlerdavid wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?
  • Options
    lnbladelnblade Member Posts: 410 Arc User
    redeyedraven wrote: »
    whistlerdavid wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?
    Both the Bismarck class and Yamato class were outfitted with aircraft catapults and carried aircraft
  • Options
    truewarpertruewarper Member Posts: 928 Arc User
    lnblade wrote: »
    redeyedraven wrote: »
    whistlerdavid wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?
    Both the Bismarck class and Yamato class were outfitted with aircraft catapults and carried aircraft

    Yes, not combat aircraft, but were spotter planes.

    52611496918_3c42b8bab8.jpg
    Departing from Sol *Earth* by Carlos A Smith,on Flickr
    SPACE---The Last and Great Frontier. A 14th-year journey
    Vna res, una mens, unum cor et anima una. Cetera omnia, somnium est.
  • Options
    lnbladelnblade Member Posts: 410 Arc User
    corinthalas wrote: »
    lnblade wrote: »
    redeyedraven wrote: »
    whistlerdavid wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?
    Both the Bismarck class and Yamato class were outfitted with aircraft catapults and carried aircraft

    I wouldn't read much into that. You're not wrong, but basically every Federation ship larger than an escort has at least one shuttle bay. The galaxy class has three, for that matter. And if a lowly class-8 shuttle counts as a hangar pet in STO, why don't more federation ships reflect their hangar capacities? Because gameplay reasons.
    I think in STO terms, that would equate to a single hangar that can only equip support pets. But my point was less that I think the Eisenberg should have a hangar slot (I don't particularly care either way if it does) and more that those battleships aren't necessarily the best examples for why size =/= carrier.
  • Options
    phoenixc#0738 phoenixc
    phoenixc#0738
         Member Posts: 5,507 Arc User
    Ships as small as cruisers and even a few of the larger destroyers had those catapult floatplanes, (the Japanese even had a class of subs that carried two floatplanes, though a cloaking "flight deck escort" would probably be closer to the I-400 Class submarine concept since the planes were its primary mode of attack). But they were not carriers as such, and in Star Trek they are represented by regular shuttles flying out of small hanger bays that are not big and important enough to the class to represent with fighterbays.

    That is the reason that in TOS the idea was that they only had two shuttles ready to fly, a pair of partially disassembled backups, and the fabricators to make parts so they can keep replacing them when needed (given enough time of course). The fact that they were up to Galileo seven probably means that they lost a few shuttles earlier in their five-year deployment (or possibly even under Pike if they don't reset the count for each deployment cycle).

    Roddenberry always said that he intended the Enterprise to be a battleship (but NBC would not allow him to use the word on the show) which is the reason that it had that shuttlebay in the first place, to represent the pair of cat planes that most battleships (and some other sizeclasses) carried.
  • Options
    aftulusaftulus Member Posts: 668 Arc User
    redeyedraven wrote: »
    whistlerdavid wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?

    If you converted it and added a flat top yes.
  • Options
    ambassadorkael#6946 ambassadorkael
    ambassadorkael#6946
         Member, Administrator Posts: 2,675 Community Manager
    It's because there's a carrier coming.
  • Options
    phoenixc#0738 phoenixc
    phoenixc#0738
         Member Posts: 5,507 Arc User
    Sounds good, while carriers still make little sense in the context of Trek they are great to have ingame :)
  • Options
    seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    ambassadorkael#6946 wrote: »
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    Well.. that is certainly good news! :smiley:
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • Options
    howtorhowtor Member Posts: 194 Arc User
    SS Kitchen sink, with pets in the shape of sponges. tier five mastery is 20% chance at 30% health for the pets to swarm your ship and scrub your ship clean of damage. I am actually looking forward to seeing what the upcoming carrier will be
  • Options
    legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan
    legendarylycan#5411
         Member Posts: 37,280 Arc User
    ambassadorkael#6946 wrote: »
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    I would be more excited about this if it weren't for the fact that flight-deck cruisers are superior in almost every way - so unless this carrier is being paired with a revamp to ALL full carriers, either via a new gear slot for a pet-based aura system or an addition of a third hangar...that's really not something for me to get excited about.​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #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!"
    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.
  • Options
    pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 4,177 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    legendarylycan#5411 wrote: »
    ambassadorkael#6946 wrote: »
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    I would be more excited about this if it weren't for the fact that flight-deck cruisers are superior in almost every way - so unless this carrier is being paired with a revamp to ALL full carriers, either via a new gear slot for a pet-based aura system or an addition of a third hangar...that's really not something for me to get excited about.​​

    Fully agree with you. Carriers need a major balance pass. Sci and Engineer Carriers more so. We also need a change in names as full carriers means two differnt things. Flight Deck Carriers are Full Carriers. But at the same time when we talk about Full Carriers needing a balance pass we mean the 3/3 carriers not the FDC's.

    I wonder if the devs are misunderstanding us due to this. We say Full carriers need a balance pass, they look at FDC's and go these look find carriers are ok.

    Looking forward to another carrier at the moment carriers are the only items I spend real money on.
  • Options
    pottsey5gpottsey5g Member Posts: 4,177 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    pottsey5g wrote: »
    Fully agree with you. Carriers need a major balance pass. Sci and Engineer Carriers more so. We also need a change in names as full carriers means two differnt things. Flight Deck Carriers are Full Carriers. But at the same time when we talk about Full Carriers needing a balance pass we mean the 3/3 carriers not the FDC's.

    I wonder if the devs are misunderstanding us due to this. We say Full carriers need a balance pass, they look at FDC's and go these look find carriers are ok.

    Absolutely. The devs themselves caused this when they changed flight-deck cruisers (which used to have only one hangar) by adding the second hangar and changing the name, without making any changes to the other carriers at that same time.

    So now we have ships that are similar to science vessels but with some obvious nerfs (such as the lack of a secdef slot, and generally worse handling) to compensate for them being full carriers... and ships that are full on cruisers with no nerfs, with hangars added on top.

    And on a side note: "Flight Deck Carrier" is both stupid and redundant / repetitive.
    My solution would be to add a Coms Array style slot. With two variations. One that boosts Hangar Pets only and one that half boost pets and half boost Sci powers but not as strong as a Secondary Deflectors.
  • Options
    angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    The long "tail" would have been a great flight deck, with shuttle bay doors port and starboard. pig-1.gif​​
    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
    #TASforSTO
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • Options
    questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,320 Arc User
    redeyedraven wrote: »
    whistlerdavid wrote: »
    that thing is so big you would think it would have at least one hanger bay

    Why would everything big automatically need to be a carrier?

    Was the Bismarck a carrier? Or the Yamato?

    But they did have the option to launch spotter planes. :pensive:
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • Options
    fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5
    fleetcaptain5#1134
         Member Posts: 4,789 Arc User
    corinthalas wrote: »
    keepcalmchiveon wrote: »
    ambassadorkael#6946 wrote: »
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    DOH!

    after the new year?

    I'm guessing as part of the anniversary. There isn't an Alliance carrier yet.

    Maybe it'll take it's inspiration from the JH carriers then.

    We have Klingon-Fed and Klingon-Romulan hybrid ships now. Thus far there haven't been any JH elements in the Alliance ships so this would be a good time to add those.
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • Options
    questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,320 Arc User
    fleetcaptain5#1134 wrote: »
    corinthalas wrote: »
    keepcalmchiveon wrote: »
    ambassadorkael#6946 wrote: »
    It's because there's a carrier coming.

    DOH!

    after the new year?

    I'm guessing as part of the anniversary. There isn't an Alliance carrier yet.

    Maybe it'll take it's inspiration from the JH carriers then.

    We have Klingon-Fed and Klingon-Romulan hybrid ships now. Thus far there haven't been any JH elements in the Alliance ships so this would be a good time to add those.

    From my point of view, any and all JH elements can vanish as far as i am concerned.
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • Options
    naabal421#0722 naabal421
    naabal421#0722
         Member Posts: 162 Arc User
    fleetcaptain5#1134 wrote: »
    Maybe it'll take it's inspiration from the JH carriers then.

    We have Klingon-Fed and Klingon-Romulan hybrid ships now. Thus far there haven't been any JH elements in the Alliance ships so this would be a good time to add those.
    If we have a Fed-Klingon, and a Kilngon-Romulan, Alliance vessel it makes sense the third one would be a Fed-Romulan vessel.

    We have a cruiser and an escort right? So having a Fed-Rom science vessel, with carriers typically being science vessels, makes sense.
This discussion has been closed.