Honestly... I never had a problem with the turn speed. The Raptor is TOUGH and if you fit it with the proper gear it can tank nearly as well as a Cruiser and still dish out more damage than most Escorts. Add to that the Decloak Alpha and I fail to see a problem. Remember, Attack Pattern Alpha & Omega give you a speed/turn boost and Evasive can be used for more than running away. If something is giving you the slip you just need to be more savvy than it is.
Oh... and Chroniton Torpedoes help a lot to stop an enemy from getting away.
Honestly... I never had a problem with the turn speed. The Raptor is TOUGH and if you fit it with the proper gear it can tank nearly as well as a Cruiser and still dish out more damage than most Escorts. Add to that the Decloak Alpha and I fail to see a problem. Remember, Attack Pattern Alpha & Omega give you a speed/turn boost and Evasive can be used for more than running away. If something is giving you the slip you just need to be more savvy than it is.
Oh... and Chroniton Torpedoes help a lot to stop an enemy from getting away.
Yeah it may boost it but enough for you to get around after most fed escorts obliterate a shield facing and you can see who it is. Unless you want to say the raptor is a cruiser sci ship killer and BoP is supposed to kill al fed escorts.
The cloak on the defiant is its special ability. Feds are not "supposed" to have cloak, and the defiant pays for it through the console. I see no reason why the raptor should not be equivalent to the defiant + have the extra console - thats the bonus for being a klingon ship.
You don't see the problem with one ship in a tier having X number of abilities, and another ship in the same tier having X number of abilities+cloak?
Okay, let me explain. There is this thing called "game balance" now "game balance" doesn't care if one side has a cultural predilection towards cloaking devices or if the ability used in the most unique ability ever. Game balance only cares that the two ships in the same tier be comparable and game balance doesn't say that Klingons should get a bonus just for being Klingons.
You don't see the problem with one ship in a tier having X number of abilities, and another ship in the same tier having X number of abilities+cloak?
Okay, let me explain. There is this thing called "game balance" now "game balance" doesn't care if one side has a cultural predilection towards cloaking devices or if the ability used in the most unique ability ever. Game balance only cares that the two ships in the same tier be comparable and game balance doesn't say that Klingons should get a bonus just for being Klingons.
So cruisers do same damage as escorts. Lets talk balance for one minute. Feds at T5 have a ship for almost every build type, Feds have 2 tac cruisers, 1 engie cruiser, 1 sci heavy cruiser, feds have a 1 tac sci ship, 1 engie sci ship, 1 sci sci ship and the nebula, feds have 1 tac escort, 1 tac/sci escort, 1 engie escort and one sci escort. Feds have a few ships that even fit between some of the hybrid slots.
KDF has the most versatile ship the BoP with all uni slots and a lot less hull but the optimal build of the BoP console layout but turns like a an intrepid not like an escort, Tactical cruiser the Vorcha, one Engie cruiser the Negh'Var, and then the issue really hits home here the Varanus a star cruiser knock off with one less console, no cloak and a ability that is amusing at best. The Marauder is a a knock off of one of the fed non intrepid sci ships and like the varunus it has a totally stupid ability as opposed to a the console the fed has. The garumba while it can be viable is a FE knock-off that is very difficult to use and in the hand of the novice it is worse than the B'Rel-R. Now the B'Rel R is one ship the feds have no equivalent but no one really flies KDF side because one sneeze and it explodes. Thoguh Pengs make it a "usable". So please tell me more about this thing you call balance.
You don't see the problem with one ship in a tier having X number of abilities, and another ship in the same tier having X number of abilities+cloak?
Okay, let me explain. There is this thing called "game balance" now "game balance" doesn't care if one side has a cultural predilection towards cloaking devices or if the ability used in the most unique ability ever. Game balance only cares that the two ships in the same tier be comparable and game balance doesn't say that Klingons should get a bonus just for being Klingons.
lol. If you want to talk "game balance", then we can talk about how the feds have the best science ships, the best defensive cruiser, the best offensive cruiser, and worst of all - the best escorts. Klingons have the best...oh wait.
Game balance does not mean one side gets X and then the other side gets X as well. Otherwise i want to know where the Klingon intrepid is. Hell I even want to know where the Klingon Deep Space Sci is, considering the Varanus is much much worse than its equivalent. Klingons should have better damage to have synergy with their "attacker" role against the feds "defensive" role in pvp.
So yes, as for the raptor being equivalent + cloak (or +1 eng console), I see nothing wrong with that. The defiant is an option if feds want cloak, but that does not mean it should be equal to the klingons. The feds get much better science (as they should, as that is more their thing) to compensate. Unfortunately not only do feds get the intrepid (+ other options) over the varanus, but they also get MVAEs and Defiants over the raptor. Thats the problem.
The cloak on the defiant is its special ability. Feds are not "supposed" to have cloak, and the defiant pays for it through the console. I see no reason why the raptor should not be equivalent to the defiant + have the extra console - thats the bonus for being a klingon ship.
Yep, same goes for the varanus, the orion and garumba. The drones/interceptors/siege mode should be optional.
That is actually what I'd prefer.
Just because Feds currently have a number of ships (and some abilities) that are vastly superior to those of the KDF doesn't mean that it's ok to gimp one over another. I'm all for improving the Raptor, as well as the rest of the Klink fleet where it's appropriate (giving the lame "special" abilities the console treatment would be a nice start), but I don't see how making the Raptor a Defiant with an additional Engineering Console does anything but skew balance. The Raptor is a bit underpowered but not by enough to justify all that.
I feel like I said pretty clearly that those things needed to be addressed. I just don't think that throwing one more thing further out of balance is the answer.
if its pivoting point is moved to the center it should fly like a fleet/advanced escort, which is a solid improvement and will basically be balanced. at that point the difference between a defiant and raptor will be 1 eng console and a bit more hull vs 17 turn rate and a bit more shields.
lol. If you want to talk "game balance", then we can talk about how the feds have the best science ships, the best defensive cruiser, the best offensive cruiser, and worst of all - the best escorts. Klingons have the best...oh wait.
We can. No, strike that, we SHOULD! I'll go make a post complaining about Klingons not having a heal boat, defensive cruiser, or offensive cruiser equivalent to what the Federation has and you go post agreement. Then you go post a thread complaining about the Federation lacking a battle cloaking raider or carrier and I'll go post agreement.
But since this thread is about Raptor maneuverability... we shouldn't talk about it here.
Game balance does not mean one side gets X and then the other side gets X as well.
Of course not, game balance means one side gets X and then the other side gets something equivalent to X.
Otherwise i want to know where the Klingon intrepid is. Hell I even want to know where the Klingon Deep Space Sci is, considering the Varanus is much much worse than its equivalent. Klingons should have better damage to have synergy with their "attacker" role against the feds "defensive" role in pvp.
Me too, but you're wildly off topic.
So yes, as for the raptor being equivalent + cloak (or +1 eng console), I see nothing wrong with that.
Okay, starting from the top. There is this thing called "Game Balance" now with "Game Balance" equally effective choices should be given to both sides of the game. Now, that is not to say identical choices, though that is the easiest way to balance. "Game Balance" is a good thing as it keeps people from making FOTM choices, keeps PVP balanced and dependent more on skill than on ship choice, and generally makes the game healthier. That is why your suggestion that the Raptor be The Defiant+ is wrong.
The defiant is an option if feds want cloak, but that does not mean it should be equal to the klingons.
No, game balance and good game design means it should be equal to the "Klingons."
The feds get much better science (as they should, as that is more their thing) to compensate. Unfortunately not only do feds get the intrepid (+ other options) over the varanus, but they also get MVAEs and Defiants over the raptor. Thats the problem.
And you're off topic again. Let me spell this out simply, I believe those deficiencies on the Klingon side should also be corrected. I do not believe those deficiencies on the Klingon side will be corrected by adding further imbalance. Nor do I think adding further imbalance will actually satisfy you in regards to those imbalances so I think your mentioning them smacks of opportunistic outrage.
Faction X does not have to be equal to faction Y in each category of healing, damage and magic in order for the game to be balanced. Balanced means both sides have an equal chance at winning. It does NOT mean both sides have the exact same resources, otherwise there is no point to having two factions.
So yes, Klingons should have better damage ships. The Raptor should be better than the defiants. Just like the Fed science "magic" ships should be better than the Klingon versions. The balance is Feds are better at healing through the damage and detecting/harassing the damage ships.
It's not a difficult concept to understand. Thats how the game was originally - no orion marauder, no varanus, no defiant. Instead of having two unique factions, they took the easy route and started just copy and pasting ships.
Faction X does not have to be equal to faction Y in each category of healing, damage and magic in order for the game to be balanced. Balanced means both sides have an equal chance at winning. It does NOT mean both sides have the exact same resources, otherwise there is no point to having two factions.
So yes, Klingons should have better damage ships. The Raptor should be better than the defiants. Just like the Fed science "magic" ships should be better than the Klingon versions. The balance is Feds are better at healing through the damage and detecting/harassing the damage ships.
It's not a difficult concept to understand. Thats how the game was originally - no orion marauder, no varanus, no defiant. Instead of having two unique factions, they took the easy route and started just copy and pasting ships.
:rolleyes:I'm wondering if you perhaps don't understand that this is an MMORPG and not a real time strategy game? You see, you don't play an entire faction, you play a single ship, and so your single ship must be balanced with the single ships around you. I know how you might possibly think, in a meta sort of way, that if the Klingon Faction has poor healers or even poor cruisers it can justify you personally having a better escort, but that is not game balance.
You are right though, your argument is not difficult to understand, it's just wrong.
:rolleyes:I'm wondering if you perhaps don't understand that this is an MMORPG and not a real time strategy game? You see, you don't play an entire faction, you play a single ship, and so your single ship must be balanced with the single ships around you. I know how you might possibly think, in a meta sort of way, that if the Klingon Faction has poor healers or even poor cruisers it can justify you personally having a better escort, but that is not game balance.
You are right though, your argument is not difficult to understand, it's just wrong.
I think this pretty much sums up my point that you have no idea what youre talking about when it comes to game balance for a team oriented game. Thanks for coming out.
I think this pretty much sums up my point that you have no idea what youre talking about when it comes to game balance for a team oriented game. Thanks for coming out.
I would highlight where you are wrong, but you've already done it for me. This is only a team oriented game for a minority of players. I had fun though, thanks for having me!
:rolleyes:I'm wondering if you perhaps don't understand that this is an MMORPG and not a real time strategy game? You see, you don't play an entire faction, you play a single ship, and so your single ship must be balanced with the single ships around you. I know how you might possibly think, in a meta sort of way, that if the Klingon Faction has poor healers or even poor cruisers it can justify you personally having a better escort, but that is not game balance.
You are right though, your argument is not difficult to understand, it's just wrong.
So right now the game is perfectly balanced. Feds have 6 better ships and the KDF has 1. And the 1 ship the KDF is more a wash because feds have a ship that is just as nimble in combat but stronger in hull, shields. Mo one is asking to make the raptor with the turn rate of the BoP or MVAM Gamma section. We are asking for it to be looked at and brought inline with other escorts it may be as simple as moving the pivot point more towards the center with no turn rate adjustment.
I don't see how two wrongs can make a right here. You can improve the raptor without it being too dominant over the defiant. The aforementioned turn rate improvement to 16 being one of them. More imbalance would just make the overall problems worse.
Here's the problem in this discussion. Each should have both advantages and disadvantages over the other. That's mostly true right now, it just needs a slight tweak. The raptor should not be "better" than the defiant, just like vice versa.
I think we're all pretty much on the same side here, so I don't understand the tone of this conversation and the insults.
So right now the game is perfectly balanced. Feds have 6 better ships and the KDF has 1. And the 1 ship the KDF is more a wash because feds have a ship that is just as nimble in combat but stronger in hull, shields. Mo one is asking to make the raptor with the turn rate of the BoP or MVAM Gamma section. We are asking for it to be looked at and brought inline with other escorts it may be as simple as moving the pivot point more towards the center with no turn rate adjustment.
Actually if you'd follow the conversation you'd see that I'm in favor of a turn rate increase for the raptor. I am not in favor of a turn rate increase that brings it up to the level of the Defiant. I am not in favor of the Federation having 6 better ships than the KDF. The discussion you are quoting is about whether it would be fair to make the Raptor blatantly and purposefully better than the Defiant-R.
Beagle believes it would be perfectly fair because he has a vision of this game as a team based experience in which a faction's strengths shine through and effect strategy and towards that same end he has conceded that the Varanus and other KDF science vessels should be inferior to Federation science vessels. I have a less idealistic outlook and see this game as a collection of players making end game choices that, while they should effect HOW the player plays the game, do not determine how well he plays the game. In short, I think a superior character flying a Raptor should beat an inferior player flying a Defiant-R, and I think a superior character flying a Defiant-R should beat an inferior player flying a Raptor, but most importantly, I think two equally skilled players flying a Defiant-R and a Raptor should not have the victory determined by some hypothetical appeal to 'faction balance' or some belief that the Raptor should be superior to the Defiant-R.
Here's the problem in this discussion. Each should have both advantages and disadvantages over the other. That's mostly true right now, it just needs a slight tweak. The raptor should not be "better" than the defiant, just like vice versa.
The advantage of the defiant is it has intrepids/mvaes/star cruisers/excelsiors/any of the other fed scis backing it up. This discussion should not be in a vacuum between only defiant vs raptor, but instead what the faction has as a whole. There is *no* reason to have a raptor based team because the support ships behind it are weaker than the feds versions.
If Raptor = Defiant, but (for example) Varanus < Deep Space Sci (or even Intrepid), Orion Marauder < Star Cruiser...why would you fly Klingons?? You can get everything + more on fed side. This is exactly why Feds are too strong right now - there are very few reasons to run Klingons and even fewer good reasons.
The advantage of the defiant is it has intrepids/mvaes/star cruisers/excelsiors/any of the other fed scis backing it up. This discussion should not be in a vacuum between only defiant vs raptor, but instead what the faction has as a whole. There is *no* reason to have a raptor based team because the support ships behind it are weaker than the feds versions.
If Raptor = Defiant, but (for example) Varanus < Deep Space Sci (or even Intrepid), Orion Marauder < Star Cruiser...why would you fly Klingons?? You can get everything + more on fed side. This is exactly why Feds are too strong right now - there are very few reasons to run Klingons and even fewer good reasons.
Just taking a moment to point out here that this is a thread dedicating to correcting a game imbalance. There's another thread discussing improving the Varanus that I actually know you've been active in. And I'll go make a thread complaining that the Orion Marauder gives up too much for it's special console later. However, none of these problems justify overbuffing the Raptor and creating ANOTHER problem. That is what people are trying to say to you.
Actually if you'd follow the conversation you'd see that I'm in favor of a turn rate increase for the raptor. I am not in favor of a turn rate increase that brings it up to the level of the Defiant. I am not in favor of the Federation having 6 better ships than the KDF. The discussion you are quoting is about whether it would be fair to make the Raptor blatantly and purposefully better than the Defiant-R.
Beagle believes it would be perfectly fair because he has a vision of this game as a team based experience in which a faction's strengths shine through and effect strategy and towards that same end he has conceded that the Varanus and other KDF science vessels should be inferior to Federation science vessels. I have a less idealistic outlook and see this game as a collection of players making end game choices that, while they should effect HOW the player plays the game, do not determine how well he plays the game. In short, I think a superior character flying a Raptor should beat an inferior player flying a Defiant-R, and I think a superior character flying a Defiant-R should beat an inferior player flying a Raptor, but most importantly, I think two equally skilled players flying a Defiant-R and a Raptor should not have the victory determined by some hypothetical appeal to 'faction balance' or some belief that the Raptor should be superior to the Defiant-R.
Hope that clears things up.
OK that clears it up. And I am with beagles on this each faction has its strengths and weakness. Feds is sci and healing and with the escorts available it has damage. The KDF is a war farring race and as a faction has 1 offs of fed ships and the one offs are not equal if they were it would not be an issue. He is saying if the Feds get 1 type of ship for every role and are the best in those roles should not the Klingons have the best ship for blowing TRIBBLE up since that is what they do best. I am cool with the KDF having weak sci ships and healers as long as it has the best escorts. The raptor should be on par if not slightly better than the defiant since that is what KDF does. Please but you have the BoP argument BoPs are barely escorts.
He is saying if the Feds get 1 type of ship for every role and are the best in those roles should not the Klingons have the best ship for blowing TRIBBLE up since that is what they do best. I am cool with the KDF having weak sci ships and healers as long as it has the best escorts. The raptor should be on par if not slightly better than the defiant since that is what KDF does. Please but you have the BoP argument BoPs are barely escorts.
OK that clears it up. And I am with beagles on this each faction has its strengths and weakness. Feds is sci and healing and with the escorts available it has damage. The KDF is a war farring race and as a faction has 1 offs of fed ships and the one offs are not equal if they were it would not be an issue. He is saying if the Feds get 1 type of ship for every role and are the best in those roles should not the Klingons have the best ship for blowing TRIBBLE up since that is what they do best. I am cool with the KDF having weak sci ships and healers as long as it has the best escorts. The raptor should be on par if not slightly better than the defiant since that is what KDF does. Please but you have the BoP argument BoPs are barely escorts.
I understand his position perfectly. My position is that neither the Federation or the KDF should have a 'best ship' for a particular role because it leads to players individually having to decide to be inferior at a given task by picking their preferred faction. I look at game balance not at the faction level but at the individual level.
Now, whichever way Cryptic decides to go, either the Data/Beagles plan of giving the Klinks inferior sci-ships in exchange for superior escorts, or giving equally effective pure escorts, science vessels and even offensive cruisers on both sides of the game doesn't really make a huge difference to me. To be quite honest I primarily play a Klingon escort, well, a Nausicaan escort, and if design philosophy ends up being that KDF damage dealers should be superior, I'm sure some pretty nifty buffs will find their way to my ship. But I'd like to see Cryptic say something official on their philosophy regarding this and a few other points of contention on these forums.
I understand his position perfectly. My position is that neither the Federation or the KDF should have a 'best ship' for a particular role because it leads to players individually having to decide to be inferior at a given task by picking their preferred faction. I look at game balance not at the faction level but at the individual level.
Now, whichever way Cryptic decides to go, either the Data/Beagles plan of giving the Klinks inferior sci-ships in exchange for superior escorts, or giving equally effective pure escorts, science vessels and even offensive cruisers on both sides of the game doesn't really make a huge difference to me. To be quite honest I primarily play a Klingon escort, well, a Nausicaan escort, and if design philosophy ends up being that KDF damage dealers should be superior, I'm sure some pretty nifty buffs will find their way to my ship. But I'd like to see Cryptic say something official on their philosophy regarding this and a few other points of contention on these forums.
I am not talkin head and shoulders better just better. I mean before the MVAM and Defiant the Raptor was the preeminent damage dealer in the game in regards to escorts. I just think it needs to be better like the fed star cruiser is better than the knockoff they gave the KDF.
Heck even if they kept the turn rate as is and give it a BC that would make the Raptor better than its fed counter parts.
I am not talkin head and shoulders better just better. I mean before the MVAM and Defiant the Raptor was the preeminent damage dealer in the game in regards to escorts. I just think it needs to be better like the fed star cruiser is better than the knockoff they gave the KDF.
Heck even if they kept the turn rate as is and give it a BC that would make the Raptor better than its fed counter parts.
Well, I still disagree in principle. I also don't think the Star Cruiser should be better than the Marauder for that matter. In practice, if the difference in effectiveness is about equal to the difference between the Marauder and the Star Cruiser, than I really don't care too much.
The BC though is a toy that's probably best to be kept in the hands of the BoP's alone. It's just easier to balance on a fragile ship.
Sorry, it makes no sense, and we might as well join the federation.
QFT
Because if and when the Rommies get here they will have better sci ships than feds and lean more towards science than the feds and definitely more than KDF.
Yes having factions that mirror each other in ship building is redundant.
Look at the cold war the US had better quality ships and planes but the Russians could build huge quantities fast. Just be cause a side is better at engineering doesn't mean the other side is worse look at the AK-47 compared to the M-16. Both are great rifles but the AK which is cheaper and has larger tolerances works better in all conditions but it isn't accurate.
Sorry, it makes no sense, and we might as well join the federation.
You're still missing the point.
It's not A=A, it's more like
1+1+2=2+3-1,
meaning you have a ship with a sum of strenghts and weakneses that make it effective in one, maybe two areas but less effective in others.
But when you take all those values together, it should sum up to the same number as any other ship.
You're still missing the point.
It's not A=A, it's more like
1+1+2=2+3-1,
meaning you have a ship with a sum of strenghts and weakneses that make it effective in one, maybe two areas but less effective in others.
But when you take all those values together, it should sum up to the same number as any other ship.
That is what me an beagles is talking about. But right now it feds 3+3+3 and KDF is 1+1+1+2
Comments
Yep, same goes for the varanus, the orion and garumba. The drones/interceptors/siege mode should be optional.
Oh... and Chroniton Torpedoes help a lot to stop an enemy from getting away.
Yeah it may boost it but enough for you to get around after most fed escorts obliterate a shield facing and you can see who it is. Unless you want to say the raptor is a cruiser sci ship killer and BoP is supposed to kill al fed escorts.
You don't see the problem with one ship in a tier having X number of abilities, and another ship in the same tier having X number of abilities+cloak?
Okay, let me explain. There is this thing called "game balance" now "game balance" doesn't care if one side has a cultural predilection towards cloaking devices or if the ability used in the most unique ability ever. Game balance only cares that the two ships in the same tier be comparable and game balance doesn't say that Klingons should get a bonus just for being Klingons.
So cruisers do same damage as escorts. Lets talk balance for one minute. Feds at T5 have a ship for almost every build type, Feds have 2 tac cruisers, 1 engie cruiser, 1 sci heavy cruiser, feds have a 1 tac sci ship, 1 engie sci ship, 1 sci sci ship and the nebula, feds have 1 tac escort, 1 tac/sci escort, 1 engie escort and one sci escort. Feds have a few ships that even fit between some of the hybrid slots.
KDF has the most versatile ship the BoP with all uni slots and a lot less hull but the optimal build of the BoP console layout but turns like a an intrepid not like an escort, Tactical cruiser the Vorcha, one Engie cruiser the Negh'Var, and then the issue really hits home here the Varanus a star cruiser knock off with one less console, no cloak and a ability that is amusing at best. The Marauder is a a knock off of one of the fed non intrepid sci ships and like the varunus it has a totally stupid ability as opposed to a the console the fed has. The garumba while it can be viable is a FE knock-off that is very difficult to use and in the hand of the novice it is worse than the B'Rel-R. Now the B'Rel R is one ship the feds have no equivalent but no one really flies KDF side because one sneeze and it explodes. Thoguh Pengs make it a "usable". So please tell me more about this thing you call balance.
lol. If you want to talk "game balance", then we can talk about how the feds have the best science ships, the best defensive cruiser, the best offensive cruiser, and worst of all - the best escorts. Klingons have the best...oh wait.
Game balance does not mean one side gets X and then the other side gets X as well. Otherwise i want to know where the Klingon intrepid is. Hell I even want to know where the Klingon Deep Space Sci is, considering the Varanus is much much worse than its equivalent. Klingons should have better damage to have synergy with their "attacker" role against the feds "defensive" role in pvp.
So yes, as for the raptor being equivalent + cloak (or +1 eng console), I see nothing wrong with that. The defiant is an option if feds want cloak, but that does not mean it should be equal to the klingons. The feds get much better science (as they should, as that is more their thing) to compensate. Unfortunately not only do feds get the intrepid (+ other options) over the varanus, but they also get MVAEs and Defiants over the raptor. Thats the problem.
That would be pretty unbalanced.
That is actually what I'd prefer.
Just because Feds currently have a number of ships (and some abilities) that are vastly superior to those of the KDF doesn't mean that it's ok to gimp one over another. I'm all for improving the Raptor, as well as the rest of the Klink fleet where it's appropriate (giving the lame "special" abilities the console treatment would be a nice start), but I don't see how making the Raptor a Defiant with an additional Engineering Console does anything but skew balance. The Raptor is a bit underpowered but not by enough to justify all that.
You mean just like the MVAM then? Or the Intrepid? Or the Turret Boat? Or the Defiant? Or the Recon Sci?
Yes one console on the raptor will easily negate all these ships advantages.
We can. No, strike that, we SHOULD! I'll go make a post complaining about Klingons not having a heal boat, defensive cruiser, or offensive cruiser equivalent to what the Federation has and you go post agreement. Then you go post a thread complaining about the Federation lacking a battle cloaking raider or carrier and I'll go post agreement.
But since this thread is about Raptor maneuverability... we shouldn't talk about it here.
Of course not, game balance means one side gets X and then the other side gets something equivalent to X.
Me too, but you're wildly off topic.
Okay, starting from the top. There is this thing called "Game Balance" now with "Game Balance" equally effective choices should be given to both sides of the game. Now, that is not to say identical choices, though that is the easiest way to balance. "Game Balance" is a good thing as it keeps people from making FOTM choices, keeps PVP balanced and dependent more on skill than on ship choice, and generally makes the game healthier. That is why your suggestion that the Raptor be The Defiant+ is wrong.
No, game balance and good game design means it should be equal to the "Klingons."
And you're off topic again. Let me spell this out simply, I believe those deficiencies on the Klingon side should also be corrected. I do not believe those deficiencies on the Klingon side will be corrected by adding further imbalance. Nor do I think adding further imbalance will actually satisfy you in regards to those imbalances so I think your mentioning them smacks of opportunistic outrage.
Faction X does not have to be equal to faction Y in each category of healing, damage and magic in order for the game to be balanced. Balanced means both sides have an equal chance at winning. It does NOT mean both sides have the exact same resources, otherwise there is no point to having two factions.
So yes, Klingons should have better damage ships. The Raptor should be better than the defiants. Just like the Fed science "magic" ships should be better than the Klingon versions. The balance is Feds are better at healing through the damage and detecting/harassing the damage ships.
It's not a difficult concept to understand. Thats how the game was originally - no orion marauder, no varanus, no defiant. Instead of having two unique factions, they took the easy route and started just copy and pasting ships.
:rolleyes:I'm wondering if you perhaps don't understand that this is an MMORPG and not a real time strategy game? You see, you don't play an entire faction, you play a single ship, and so your single ship must be balanced with the single ships around you. I know how you might possibly think, in a meta sort of way, that if the Klingon Faction has poor healers or even poor cruisers it can justify you personally having a better escort, but that is not game balance.
You are right though, your argument is not difficult to understand, it's just wrong.
I think this pretty much sums up my point that you have no idea what youre talking about when it comes to game balance for a team oriented game. Thanks for coming out.
I would highlight where you are wrong, but you've already done it for me. This is only a team oriented game for a minority of players. I had fun though, thanks for having me!
So right now the game is perfectly balanced. Feds have 6 better ships and the KDF has 1. And the 1 ship the KDF is more a wash because feds have a ship that is just as nimble in combat but stronger in hull, shields. Mo one is asking to make the raptor with the turn rate of the BoP or MVAM Gamma section. We are asking for it to be looked at and brought inline with other escorts it may be as simple as moving the pivot point more towards the center with no turn rate adjustment.
Here's the problem in this discussion. Each should have both advantages and disadvantages over the other. That's mostly true right now, it just needs a slight tweak. The raptor should not be "better" than the defiant, just like vice versa.
I think we're all pretty much on the same side here, so I don't understand the tone of this conversation and the insults.
Actually if you'd follow the conversation you'd see that I'm in favor of a turn rate increase for the raptor. I am not in favor of a turn rate increase that brings it up to the level of the Defiant. I am not in favor of the Federation having 6 better ships than the KDF. The discussion you are quoting is about whether it would be fair to make the Raptor blatantly and purposefully better than the Defiant-R.
Beagle believes it would be perfectly fair because he has a vision of this game as a team based experience in which a faction's strengths shine through and effect strategy and towards that same end he has conceded that the Varanus and other KDF science vessels should be inferior to Federation science vessels. I have a less idealistic outlook and see this game as a collection of players making end game choices that, while they should effect HOW the player plays the game, do not determine how well he plays the game. In short, I think a superior character flying a Raptor should beat an inferior player flying a Defiant-R, and I think a superior character flying a Defiant-R should beat an inferior player flying a Raptor, but most importantly, I think two equally skilled players flying a Defiant-R and a Raptor should not have the victory determined by some hypothetical appeal to 'faction balance' or some belief that the Raptor should be superior to the Defiant-R.
Hope that clears things up.
The advantage of the defiant is it has intrepids/mvaes/star cruisers/excelsiors/any of the other fed scis backing it up. This discussion should not be in a vacuum between only defiant vs raptor, but instead what the faction has as a whole. There is *no* reason to have a raptor based team because the support ships behind it are weaker than the feds versions.
If Raptor = Defiant, but (for example) Varanus < Deep Space Sci (or even Intrepid), Orion Marauder < Star Cruiser...why would you fly Klingons?? You can get everything + more on fed side. This is exactly why Feds are too strong right now - there are very few reasons to run Klingons and even fewer good reasons.
Just taking a moment to point out here that this is a thread dedicating to correcting a game imbalance. There's another thread discussing improving the Varanus that I actually know you've been active in. And I'll go make a thread complaining that the Orion Marauder gives up too much for it's special console later. However, none of these problems justify overbuffing the Raptor and creating ANOTHER problem. That is what people are trying to say to you.
OK that clears it up. And I am with beagles on this each faction has its strengths and weakness. Feds is sci and healing and with the escorts available it has damage. The KDF is a war farring race and as a faction has 1 offs of fed ships and the one offs are not equal if they were it would not be an issue. He is saying if the Feds get 1 type of ship for every role and are the best in those roles should not the Klingons have the best ship for blowing TRIBBLE up since that is what they do best. I am cool with the KDF having weak sci ships and healers as long as it has the best escorts. The raptor should be on par if not slightly better than the defiant since that is what KDF does. Please but you have the BoP argument BoPs are barely escorts.
Yes, exactly.
I understand his position perfectly. My position is that neither the Federation or the KDF should have a 'best ship' for a particular role because it leads to players individually having to decide to be inferior at a given task by picking their preferred faction. I look at game balance not at the faction level but at the individual level.
Now, whichever way Cryptic decides to go, either the Data/Beagles plan of giving the Klinks inferior sci-ships in exchange for superior escorts, or giving equally effective pure escorts, science vessels and even offensive cruisers on both sides of the game doesn't really make a huge difference to me. To be quite honest I primarily play a Klingon escort, well, a Nausicaan escort, and if design philosophy ends up being that KDF damage dealers should be superior, I'm sure some pretty nifty buffs will find their way to my ship. But I'd like to see Cryptic say something official on their philosophy regarding this and a few other points of contention on these forums.
I am not talkin head and shoulders better just better. I mean before the MVAM and Defiant the Raptor was the preeminent damage dealer in the game in regards to escorts. I just think it needs to be better like the fed star cruiser is better than the knockoff they gave the KDF.
Heck even if they kept the turn rate as is and give it a BC that would make the Raptor better than its fed counter parts.
Well, I still disagree in principle. I also don't think the Star Cruiser should be better than the Marauder for that matter. In practice, if the difference in effectiveness is about equal to the difference between the Marauder and the Star Cruiser, than I really don't care too much.
The BC though is a toy that's probably best to be kept in the hands of the BoP's alone. It's just easier to balance on a fragile ship.
A = A
B = B
C = C
Sorry, it makes no sense, and we might as well join the federation.
QFT
Because if and when the Rommies get here they will have better sci ships than feds and lean more towards science than the feds and definitely more than KDF.
Yes having factions that mirror each other in ship building is redundant.
Look at the cold war the US had better quality ships and planes but the Russians could build huge quantities fast. Just be cause a side is better at engineering doesn't mean the other side is worse look at the AK-47 compared to the M-16. Both are great rifles but the AK which is cheaper and has larger tolerances works better in all conditions but it isn't accurate.
You're still missing the point.
It's not A=A, it's more like
1+1+2=2+3-1,
meaning you have a ship with a sum of strenghts and weakneses that make it effective in one, maybe two areas but less effective in others.
But when you take all those values together, it should sum up to the same number as any other ship.
That is what me an beagles is talking about. But right now it feds 3+3+3 and KDF is 1+1+1+2