No, i know exactly what the point is. Your equations still lead to the same conclusion: 4 = 4 aka A = A.
Factions should be different in order to encourage different play styles and options. This has always been how factions work in any game ive ever played (RTS, RPG, even FPS). Balance is achieved by making sure, in the end, both sides have an equal chance of winning - but the methods used to achieve victory by each side is completely different.
Classic example is Elves vs Dwarves. Elves specialize in Archers, you wouldnt expect dwarves to be nearly as good because that is not their style. Instead, in order to balance the game, Dwarves get heavy armour to weather the incoming arrows and reach hand to hand combat.
This is exactly how STO was at the beginning and what it should strive to be again. The federation escorts should NOT do as much damage or have the same abilities (cloak) as the Klingons. However, they should be tankier. This is how it was - Feds could go tankier (fleet escort) or more science (advanced escort), Klingons went more damage (Raptor). But since then Feds just get C & P versions of Klingon ships that are actually superior to the Klingon versions (Defiant>Raptor, MVAM>Bird of Prey [only unique thing BoP does is cloak alpha now]), balance is thrown out the window, and it is no surprise that right now in PVP, Federation>Klingons.
This is why all but *TWO* competitive PvP fleets play Feds, with a lot of them leaving the Klingon side to gain access to all the superior Fed ships.
That is what me an beagles is talking about. But right now it feds 3+3+3 and KDF is 1+1+1+2
Actually in his equation all of the numbers on the left side were the Raptor and all of the numbers on the right side were the Defiant-R. He was suggesting that the two ships could be different, have different strengths and weaknesses to encourage different styles of play and different strategies while still being equally effective overall.
No, i know exactly what the point is. Your equations still lead to the same conclusion: 4 = 4 aka A = A.
Factions should be different in order to encourage different play styles and options. This has always been how factions work in any game ive ever played (RTS, RPG, even FPS). Balance is achieved by making sure, in the end, both sides have an equal chance of winning - but the methods used to achieve victory by each side is completely different.
You say you understand the point, then you say something that shows you don't understand the point. Factions should be different in order to encourage different play styles, yes. But ships in a faction don't need to be more powerful for the factions to be different. If only there was some example, taken from this own thread we could use...
This is exactly how STO was at the beginning and what it should strive to be again. The federation escorts should NOT do as much damage or have the same abilities (cloak) as the Klingons. However, they should be tankier. This is how it was - Feds could go tankier (fleet escort) or more science (advanced escort), Klingons went more damage (Raptor). But since then Feds just get C & P versions of Klingon ships that are actually superior to the Klingon versions (Defiant>Raptor, MVAM>Bird of Prey [only unique thing BoP does is cloak alpha now]), balance is thrown out the window, and it is no surprise that right now in PVP, Federation>Klingons.
Exactly, thank you Beagles. You see, in this example the Klingon Raptor is only AS effective as the "tankier" fleet escort or the more science-y advanced escort. Or in the parlance of this discussion the tankier fleet escort is 2+1+2, and the science-y advanced escort is 1+2+2 to the Raptors 1+1+3, or as you have correctly identified. 5=5 and A=A.
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.
also, the ens station on all kdf ships should be universal imo, then their 1 ship can by flown like any one of 3 equivalent fed ships
Exactly, thank you Beagles. You see, in this example the Klingon Raptor is only AS effective as the "tankier" fleet escort or the more science-y advanced escort. Or in the parlance of this discussion the tankier fleet escort is 2+1+2, and the science-y advanced escort is 1+2+2 to the Raptors 1+1+3, or as you have correctly identified. 5=5 and A=A.
lol, that is twisting what i say. The raptor is BETTER at damage because it has cloak buff + extra tactical ensign. It is not a direct comparison to the fleet escort, because the extra engineer and science + no cloak make them completely different ships. Unfortunately they released the defiant which is better than the raptor, throwing the balance off. The way the formula should read is:
Actually in his equation all of the numbers on the left side were the Raptor and all of the numbers on the right side were the Defiant-R. He was suggesting that the two ships could be different, have different strengths and weaknesses to encourage different styles of play and different strategies while still being equally effective overall.
Thanks, at least you understood my analogy.:(
I meant the sum of strengths and weaknesses represented by arbitrarily assigning numbers.
If I misunderstood what you said I apologize, but it looked like you were saying the Fleet Escort and Advanced Escort were as effective as the Raptor without being the Raptor. Where as the Defiant is more effective than the Raptor and, for all intents and purposes, is the Raptor.
But ofcourse this entire excercise is pointless. Even in an arena situation you are not going to field an entire faction. You're not even going to field one of each ship from an entire faction. What we're really discussing is what a teams balance should be, and I reject your premise that a Federation team should not be able to go with a full on, top of the line, cloaking alpha strike load out if that is how the team chooses to play in the same way that I reject your premise that the KDF should not be able to field a top of the line team of science heavy debuffers.
So go ahead and explain your position again, go ahead and appeal to 'faction diversity' even after you have already been told how faction diversity can be maintained even while ships stay on an equal footing across classes. Explain again that the Klingons are under powered even though we've already agreed that it is a problem that should be addressed. And then tell us once more that the solution is for Klingons to have better escorts than the Federation and worse science vessels. Then I'll explain again that your model is not the only way to maintain faction diversity, your model is not the only way to correct faction imbalance and your model is not even the best way to address these two problems.
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.
It sounds to me like you are having more of a tanking issue than a turning issue. All I can say is that I would need to see your specific build because I had no problem creaming most Escorts with my Raptor save one (not the Defiant.). Most of them panic when their Alpha gets shrugged off like it was nerf guns and then your Alpha turns them into space dust.
In Testing
These items are currently being tested on either an internal test shard or on TRIBBLE
....
New ship variants of these ship classes - Galaxy, Intrepid, Defiant, Akira, BOP, Raptor, and Battlecruisers....
I hope that this time we'll get the decent Raptor (not another Craptor), new "BOP Ferrari" and our problems will be solved soon. Klinks, now we must buy more CP!
I disagree with QEW that the Raptor should just be made into a "better defiant". Having one ship as a superset of another ship at the same tier is terrible design (/angry glance towards everyone at Cryptic involved with the RI debacle)
I do agree that Klingons strength should be offensive, and that the Raptor should have a more offensive role than federation escorts. The boff layout used to accomplish that, but now it doesn't.
Instead of simply buffing up the Raptor until it becomes a better defiant, give it something else. For example, take away a rear weapons slot and some health in exchange for a fifth front firing weapon slot. That would make the Raptor the most aggressive ship in the game, without resorting to completely invalidating a federation ship.
That's just an example, you could also give the Raptor an ability console that in some way increases it's offensive effectiveness. Just do something more creative than making it a 'Defiant+' as some have suggested.
I disagree with QEW that the Raptor should just be made into a "better defiant". Having one ship as a superset of another ship at the same tier is terrible design (/angry glance towards everyone at Cryptic involved with the RI debacle)
I do agree that Klingons strength should be offensive, and that the Raptor should have a more offensive role than federation escorts. The boff layout used to accomplish that, but now it doesn't.
Instead of simply buffing up the Raptor until it becomes a better defiant, give it something else. For example, take away a rear weapons slot and some health in exchange for a fifth front firing weapon slot. That would make the Raptor the most aggressive ship in the game, without resorting to completely invalidating a federation ship.
That's just an example, you could also give the Raptor an ability console that in some way increases it's offensive effectiveness. Just do something more creative than making it a 'Defiant+' as some have suggested.
The problem with giving it a fifth front weapon is it turns like an intrepid and will loose against defiants and MVAE in a turning battle.
The pivot point is being moved. But even if it wasn't, it would make the Raptor the ultimate big ship killer.
In any case, it's not something I'm advocating. Just an example of how you could make the Raptor good and worth it again without just buffing it in to a "super defiant"
I disagree with QEW that the Raptor should just be made into a "better defiant". Having one ship as a superset of another ship at the same tier is terrible design (/angry glance towards everyone at Cryptic involved with the RI debacle)
I do agree that Klingons strength should be offensive, and that the Raptor should have a more offensive role than federation escorts. The boff layout used to accomplish that, but now it doesn't.
Instead of simply buffing up the Raptor until it becomes a better defiant, give it something else. For example, take away a rear weapons slot and some health in exchange for a fifth front firing weapon slot. That would make the Raptor the most aggressive ship in the game, without resorting to completely invalidating a federation ship.
That's just an example, you could also give the Raptor an ability console that in some way increases it's offensive effectiveness. Just do something more creative than making it a 'Defiant+' as some have suggested.
Making something blatantly overpowered by cloning one thing and adding to it does a disservice to the game (oh look, there's the RI you mentioned again). Most people with a clue seem to understand that you don't need two factions to mirror each other in order to create balance. Balance can exist if we are more innovative and less prone to make lazy, poorly thought out changes.
The pivot point is being moved. But even if it wasn't, it would make the Raptor the ultimate big ship killer.
In any case, it's not something I'm advocating. Just an example of how you could make the Raptor good and worth it again without just buffing it in to a "super defiant"
With a uber buffed turn rate it would be a super defiant. Defiant Boff layout with FE Console layout. But right now it has the turn rate of an intrepid. I under stand Beagles point that so far in this game the every KDF ship that we got above the stock ones were Cut and Pastes that were nerfed from jump because fear of them being OP'd. Too bad they don't have the same QA for weapons and gear but I digress. Before the Defiant and MVAM the Raptor was the escort king but somewhere along the way it lost its standing and all the best escorts are fed actually 95% of all the good ships are fed that is not balance.
flying exactly like a fleet escort with a cloak, its 3k extra hull, and the near useless 3rd ensign tactical station is all that's needed. some special ability or pet i would rather do without.
Since we already have a high turn rate Raider (BoP) it makes sense that a Starfleet Escort would sit between the turn rate of a Raider and Escort as it effectively balances it out.
I doubt Cryptic will increase the turn rate for precisely that reason, regardless of whether or not it would truly effect balance.
Instead of simply buffing up the Raptor until it becomes a better defiant, give it something else. For example, take away a rear weapons slot and some health in exchange for a fifth front firing weapon slot. That would make the Raptor the most aggressive ship in the game, without resorting to completely invalidating a federation ship.
That would be neat. The additional forward fire power may lead to additional 'balancing' if the more optimal weapon layout was more or less powerful than originally anticipated but it would at least be different.
it technically does have the same turn rate as a fleet escort already, but the pivot point of a turn on the raptor is at the very back were the impulse engines are. this actually makes it take longer to point your nose and forward weapons at your opponent then a ship that pivot's and turns in the center of the ship like all the starfleet escorts. the raptor turns only about as well as an intrepid now.
Maybe I'm messed up, but to move the tip of the ship a fixed distance by rotating it at the very rear of the ship is more efficient than rotating it about its center.
to move the nose of the ship a fixed arc distance while turning, the angle from the rear of the ship is smaller than the angle from the middle of the ship. If you are rotating at a fixed degrees/sec, it would take longer to rotate the same arc distance. Kinda like using a longer lever. No? Maybe I'm wrong...I'm quite jetlagged this morning.
Maybe I'm messed up, but to move the tip of the ship a fixed distance by rotating it at the very rear of the ship is more efficient than rotating it about its center.
to move the nose of the ship a fixed arc distance while turning, the angle from the rear of the ship is smaller than the angle from the middle of the ship. If you are rotating at a fixed degrees/sec, it would take longer to rotate the same arc distance. Kinda like using a longer lever. No? Maybe I'm wrong...I'm quite jetlagged this morning.
The shorter the radial distance the quicker the turn, we can get into sprung and unsprung weight and how it also affects turning but unless you are a gear head it might give you a headache.
Hence why the hill climbing gear is easier to turn then the speed gear on a bike. Also draw a small circle and a big circle around it then draw a crosshair that cuts the 2 circles into fourths now measure the distance of the arc on the small circle then the big circle.
If you played baseball that is why your coaches always told you to choke up on the bat, it got your bat through the strike zone faster.
The shorter the radial distance the quicker the turn, we can get into sprung and unsprung weight and how it also affects turning but unless you are a gear head it might give you a headache.
Hence why the hill climbing gear is easier to turn then the speed gear on a bike. Also draw a small circle and a big circle around it then draw a crosshair that cuts the 2 circles into fourths now measure the distance of the arc on the small circle then the big circle.
If you played baseball that is why your coaches always told you to choke up on the bat, it got your bat through the strike zone faster.
So many examples so little time.
All your analogies are about increasing the turning speed (we are not discussing increasing the degrees per sec turn rate here)
Hill climbing gear converts a larger diameter revolution (from the larger diameter gear) to a multiple revolutions of a smaller diameter, resulting in more revolutions per time. ( In game, an increase in turning speed is an increase in the degrees per sec turn rate)
In the big circle and small circle argument, you lost me. The arc of the larger circle is longer, but the time it takes to traverse a 90 degree arc is the same regardless of the diameter of the circle. (If degr per sec turn rate is constant)
I choked up on the bat to help me increase the speed of the head of the bat, because it takes less force to move the lower mass to the same velocity.
As long as rotational speed (degrees per second) is constant, the length of the lever does not impact how many degrees you rotate but the arc distance rotated per second is higher in the longer lever if rotational speed is constant.
All your analogies are about increasing the turning speed (we are not discussing increasing the degrees per sec turn rate here)
Hill climbing gear converts a larger diameter revolution (from the larger diameter gear) to a multiple revolutions of a smaller diameter, resulting in more revolutions per time. ( In game, an increase in turning speed is an increase in the degrees per sec turn rate)
In the big circle and small circle argument, you lost me. The arc of the larger circle is longer, but the time it takes to traverse a 90 degree arc is the same regardless of the diameter of the circle. (If degr per sec turn rate is constant)
I choked up on the bat to help me increase the speed of the head of the bat, because it takes less force to move the lower mass to the same velocity.
As long as rotational speed (degrees per second) is constant, the length of the lever does not impact how many degrees you rotate but the arc distance rotated per second is higher in the longer lever if rotational speed is constant.
Your math is off. The game does not represent turning right anyways. Because if 2 ships have the same degree turning rate means it is equal. But if you compare the turning of the raptor to is fed counter part the fed ship will turn faster. A turn cover distance so the distance from point A to point B is smaller on a fed escort than on a raptor.
Fix the turn rate so I can go back to flying my Raptor. It's simply a disgrace how bad this thing turns and anyone who disagrees, well not to sound like an *** but I question your experience in one.
Fix the turn rate so I can go back to flying my Raptor. It's simply a disgrace how bad this thing turns and anyone who disagrees, well not to sound like an *** but I question your experience in one.
Comments
Factions should be different in order to encourage different play styles and options. This has always been how factions work in any game ive ever played (RTS, RPG, even FPS). Balance is achieved by making sure, in the end, both sides have an equal chance of winning - but the methods used to achieve victory by each side is completely different.
Classic example is Elves vs Dwarves. Elves specialize in Archers, you wouldnt expect dwarves to be nearly as good because that is not their style. Instead, in order to balance the game, Dwarves get heavy armour to weather the incoming arrows and reach hand to hand combat.
This is exactly how STO was at the beginning and what it should strive to be again. The federation escorts should NOT do as much damage or have the same abilities (cloak) as the Klingons. However, they should be tankier. This is how it was - Feds could go tankier (fleet escort) or more science (advanced escort), Klingons went more damage (Raptor). But since then Feds just get C & P versions of Klingon ships that are actually superior to the Klingon versions (Defiant>Raptor, MVAM>Bird of Prey [only unique thing BoP does is cloak alpha now]), balance is thrown out the window, and it is no surprise that right now in PVP, Federation>Klingons.
This is why all but *TWO* competitive PvP fleets play Feds, with a lot of them leaving the Klingon side to gain access to all the superior Fed ships.
Actually in his equation all of the numbers on the left side were the Raptor and all of the numbers on the right side were the Defiant-R. He was suggesting that the two ships could be different, have different strengths and weaknesses to encourage different styles of play and different strategies while still being equally effective overall.
You say you understand the point, then you say something that shows you don't understand the point. Factions should be different in order to encourage different play styles, yes. But ships in a faction don't need to be more powerful for the factions to be different. If only there was some example, taken from this own thread we could use...
Exactly, thank you Beagles. You see, in this example the Klingon Raptor is only AS effective as the "tankier" fleet escort or the more science-y advanced escort. Or in the parlance of this discussion the tankier fleet escort is 2+1+2, and the science-y advanced escort is 1+2+2 to the Raptors 1+1+3, or as you have correctly identified. 5=5 and A=A.
also, the ens station on all kdf ships should be universal imo, then their 1 ship can by flown like any one of 3 equivalent fed ships
I'd have totally agreed before the Marauder and the Guramba. Now I just think ALL ensign slots should be universal.
lol, that is twisting what i say. The raptor is BETTER at damage because it has cloak buff + extra tactical ensign. It is not a direct comparison to the fleet escort, because the extra engineer and science + no cloak make them completely different ships. Unfortunately they released the defiant which is better than the raptor, throwing the balance off. The way the formula should read is:
Feds Science 3 + Fed Cruisers 2 + Fed Escorts 1 = 6
Kling Science 1 + Kling Cruisers 2 + Kling Escorts 3 = 6
Unfortunately it is more like:
Feds Science 3 + Fed Cruisers 2.5 + Fed Escorts 4 = 9.5
Kling Science 1 + Kling Cruisers 2 + Kling Escorts 3 = 6
Thanks, at least you understood my analogy.:(
I meant the sum of strengths and weaknesses represented by arbitrarily assigning numbers.
If I misunderstood what you said I apologize, but it looked like you were saying the Fleet Escort and Advanced Escort were as effective as the Raptor without being the Raptor. Where as the Defiant is more effective than the Raptor and, for all intents and purposes, is the Raptor.
Yes, I understand what you think the equation should be, and I'm sure you understand I think the equation should look like
But ofcourse this entire excercise is pointless. Even in an arena situation you are not going to field an entire faction. You're not even going to field one of each ship from an entire faction. What we're really discussing is what a teams balance should be, and I reject your premise that a Federation team should not be able to go with a full on, top of the line, cloaking alpha strike load out if that is how the team chooses to play in the same way that I reject your premise that the KDF should not be able to field a top of the line team of science heavy debuffers.
So go ahead and explain your position again, go ahead and appeal to 'faction diversity' even after you have already been told how faction diversity can be maintained even while ships stay on an equal footing across classes. Explain again that the Klingons are under powered even though we've already agreed that it is a problem that should be addressed. And then tell us once more that the solution is for Klingons to have better escorts than the Federation and worse science vessels. Then I'll explain again that your model is not the only way to maintain faction diversity, your model is not the only way to correct faction imbalance and your model is not even the best way to address these two problems.
It sounds to me like you are having more of a tanking issue than a turning issue. All I can say is that I would need to see your specific build because I had no problem creaming most Escorts with my Raptor save one (not the Defiant.). Most of them panic when their Alpha gets shrugged off like it was nerf guns and then your Alpha turns them into space dust.
I hope that this time we'll get the decent Raptor (not another Craptor), new "BOP Ferrari" and our problems will be solved soon. Klinks, now we must buy more CP!
I do agree that Klingons strength should be offensive, and that the Raptor should have a more offensive role than federation escorts. The boff layout used to accomplish that, but now it doesn't.
Instead of simply buffing up the Raptor until it becomes a better defiant, give it something else. For example, take away a rear weapons slot and some health in exchange for a fifth front firing weapon slot. That would make the Raptor the most aggressive ship in the game, without resorting to completely invalidating a federation ship.
That's just an example, you could also give the Raptor an ability console that in some way increases it's offensive effectiveness. Just do something more creative than making it a 'Defiant+' as some have suggested.
The problem with giving it a fifth front weapon is it turns like an intrepid and will loose against defiants and MVAE in a turning battle.
In any case, it's not something I'm advocating. Just an example of how you could make the Raptor good and worth it again without just buffing it in to a "super defiant"
Making something blatantly overpowered by cloning one thing and adding to it does a disservice to the game (oh look, there's the RI you mentioned again). Most people with a clue seem to understand that you don't need two factions to mirror each other in order to create balance. Balance can exist if we are more innovative and less prone to make lazy, poorly thought out changes.
I agree with both of these posts. I agree with one equally as much as the other. And the circumstances are unfortunate:(.
With a uber buffed turn rate it would be a super defiant. Defiant Boff layout with FE Console layout. But right now it has the turn rate of an intrepid. I under stand Beagles point that so far in this game the every KDF ship that we got above the stock ones were Cut and Pastes that were nerfed from jump because fear of them being OP'd. Too bad they don't have the same QA for weapons and gear but I digress. Before the Defiant and MVAM the Raptor was the escort king but somewhere along the way it lost its standing and all the best escorts are fed actually 95% of all the good ships are fed that is not balance.
Is that the Last Starfighter Death Blossom or something
I doubt Cryptic will increase the turn rate for precisely that reason, regardless of whether or not it would truly effect balance.
That would be neat. The additional forward fire power may lead to additional 'balancing' if the more optimal weapon layout was more or less powerful than originally anticipated but it would at least be different.
to move the nose of the ship a fixed arc distance while turning, the angle from the rear of the ship is smaller than the angle from the middle of the ship. If you are rotating at a fixed degrees/sec, it would take longer to rotate the same arc distance. Kinda like using a longer lever. No? Maybe I'm wrong...I'm quite jetlagged this morning.
The shorter the radial distance the quicker the turn, we can get into sprung and unsprung weight and how it also affects turning but unless you are a gear head it might give you a headache.
Hence why the hill climbing gear is easier to turn then the speed gear on a bike. Also draw a small circle and a big circle around it then draw a crosshair that cuts the 2 circles into fourths now measure the distance of the arc on the small circle then the big circle.
If you played baseball that is why your coaches always told you to choke up on the bat, it got your bat through the strike zone faster.
So many examples so little time.
All your analogies are about increasing the turning speed (we are not discussing increasing the degrees per sec turn rate here)
Hill climbing gear converts a larger diameter revolution (from the larger diameter gear) to a multiple revolutions of a smaller diameter, resulting in more revolutions per time. ( In game, an increase in turning speed is an increase in the degrees per sec turn rate)
In the big circle and small circle argument, you lost me. The arc of the larger circle is longer, but the time it takes to traverse a 90 degree arc is the same regardless of the diameter of the circle. (If degr per sec turn rate is constant)
I choked up on the bat to help me increase the speed of the head of the bat, because it takes less force to move the lower mass to the same velocity.
As long as rotational speed (degrees per second) is constant, the length of the lever does not impact how many degrees you rotate but the arc distance rotated per second is higher in the longer lever if rotational speed is constant.
Your math is off. The game does not represent turning right anyways. Because if 2 ships have the same degree turning rate means it is equal. But if you compare the turning of the raptor to is fed counter part the fed ship will turn faster. A turn cover distance so the distance from point A to point B is smaller on a fed escort than on a raptor.
I highlighted the point you helped me prove
I'll drink to that!