test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Suggested Change for RCS Consoles
aethon3050
Member Posts: 599 Arc User
Suggestion: Change the bonus of RCS consoles to give a specific increase to base turn rate, regardless of the existing turn rate the ship has. For example, +1 Turn Rate, so a Galaxy would end up with a base turn rate of 7 instead of 6 if equipped with one such console, whereas an escort with 16 turn rate would only end up with 17.
Reason: Escorts don't need the help turning; cruisers do. The current implementation of the RCS console makes them useless to the ships that really need them, and extremely potent on the ships that can get by just fine without them.
Examples:
Console - Engineering - RCS Accelerator Mk XI (+35% Flight Turn Rate)
The present effects of the console are as follows:
Ship 1 - Galaxy, base turn rate of 6. With the above console, this increases to 8.1
Ship 2 - Prometheus, base turn rate of 15. With the same console, it becomes 20.25.
So, while the escort gets more than a 5 point increase in turn speed, the ship that really needs help turning only gets 2.1. Now, here's that same example, but with a fixed turn rate increase, including a somewhat-random number:
Hypothetical Console - Engineering - RCS Accelerator Mk XI (+3 Base Turn Rate)
Effects:
Ship 1 - Galaxy, base turn of 6, which becomes 9.
Ship 2 - Prometheus, base turn of 15, which becomes 18.
In this case, the ship that needs the most help turning actually benefits the most from equipping this module. The escort, on the other hand, doesn't exactly need help turning, but can still equip one if the player so chooses.
Anyway, just a thought, and please keep in mind that I'm not saying it should be +3 for the Mk XI blue console; that's just a number I made up for the example. I just thought the percentage value on these consoles seemed sort of counterproductive, but I'd like to know if I'm the only one who thinks this would be a worthwhile change.
Reason: Escorts don't need the help turning; cruisers do. The current implementation of the RCS console makes them useless to the ships that really need them, and extremely potent on the ships that can get by just fine without them.
Examples:
Console - Engineering - RCS Accelerator Mk XI (+35% Flight Turn Rate)
The present effects of the console are as follows:
Ship 1 - Galaxy, base turn rate of 6. With the above console, this increases to 8.1
Ship 2 - Prometheus, base turn rate of 15. With the same console, it becomes 20.25.
So, while the escort gets more than a 5 point increase in turn speed, the ship that really needs help turning only gets 2.1. Now, here's that same example, but with a fixed turn rate increase, including a somewhat-random number:
Hypothetical Console - Engineering - RCS Accelerator Mk XI (+3 Base Turn Rate)
Effects:
Ship 1 - Galaxy, base turn of 6, which becomes 9.
Ship 2 - Prometheus, base turn of 15, which becomes 18.
In this case, the ship that needs the most help turning actually benefits the most from equipping this module. The escort, on the other hand, doesn't exactly need help turning, but can still equip one if the player so chooses.
Anyway, just a thought, and please keep in mind that I'm not saying it should be +3 for the Mk XI blue console; that's just a number I made up for the example. I just thought the percentage value on these consoles seemed sort of counterproductive, but I'd like to know if I'm the only one who thinks this would be a worthwhile change.
Post edited by aethon3050 on
0
Comments
While I agree (and use) the tactics you mentioned (and more), this thread isn't about cruisers; it's about a proposed change to the RCS Accelerator console.
It's also not about what is absolutely necessary; it's about optimizing the ship to suit the player's preference. After all, one could argue that escorts don't need consoles to do decent DPS, and science ships don't really need science consoles, since most of their power-increasing skills are on the skillsheet, not the ship itself...but we want to use consoles because they increase our capabilities; if they don't work, why do they exist? The RCS console is, in the opinion of every player I've spoken to about it, giving a weaker bonus to the ships that could benefit from it the most, while giving a very strong bonus to ships that don't need it...thus the reason I started the topic.
Cruisers are ment to be bulky and slow turning, if your play style is to be quick turning, then you need to modify your play style rather than the cruiser istelf ^^
I think cruisers have all the drawback they need due to their having, optimistically, about half the firepower of an escort craft. What exactly are people afraid will happen by letting cruisers point their ship more quickly? They can't use dual cannons; they lack tactical shininess; they are never going to hit the same ridiculous DPS peaks that escorts do.
why crytic thinks its fun to play the ultra slow turn ships is beyond me its boring.
before anyone start trolling saying well fly a escort then if u want to turn fast. i do i have 7 toons i play alot most are in different ships the rest are for diltium farming.
But so far no dev ever even commented on it.
Sadly the devs seem to be hardcore Escort fans and won't give Cruisers anything like this.
As lostusthorn already said, this kind of idea is pretty old but no Dev has EVER comment it.
If i were the one to decide, cruisers would get the same turnrate as some Science vessels (9-15 degrees per sec.), which would make them much more fun to fly and would give them a much more active role in Combat. But as i already said, the devs are apparently not interested in improving cruisers in that way. They seem to be happy with cruisers being practically static compared to escorts (at least in PvP).
On the other hand i don't see a reason not to improve Cruisers when it comes to PvE.
Your suggestions wouldn't be game breaking but they would enhance the experience when flying Cruiser a lot IMO.
Live long and prosper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpfbJLLbczs
This.
It's mind-boggling that the CRUZER ONLY crowd would request absolute increases over relative increases. Well, selectively, obviously: can't have absolute increases in areas where it wouldn't benefit the CRUZER ONLY agenda.
Then again, that one learns to expect anything from that crowd.
Well, then the players you've spoken to are lacking in the same areas you are. It's not even a question of opinion: it literally gives the same boost to everyone. That's what relative increases do.
I think a flat bonus is a awesome suggestion. It doesn't actually have to help cruiser or the like, and it keep escorts from shooting well over the curve into broken.
Also it should be noted that consoles do have a diminishing return. The second console only gives part of the bonus the first did, and the third a very small increase. Anything after that gives effectively nil.
I have to disagree, rather strongly; that's not like what I'm suggesting at all. Cruisers wouldn't be that maneuverable with an increase like this, and they would give up a tanking module to do so, thereby making them softer. It's not like I'm asking for a free turn rate increase, which is what the cruiser threads all suggest.
Second, I'm not trying to be 'quick turning'. An escort is a quick-turning ship; a cruiser never will be, without using abilities; I'm suggesting a change to a module that would help cruisers turn a little faster, at the expense of some of their tanking ability.
You're jumping to conclusions...incorrect ones, at that.
Perhaps you can answer the following question for me:
How would it break the balance of the game if cruisers, science vessels, and carriers could turn a little bit faster, if they are giving up a tanking console to do it, and can't mount dual cannons?
this consoles only for newbie players what can not decide/ telled what is really importend in endgame play.
its junk to punp into the replicator so bring more junk is good idea?
i dont think.:D
However:
Galaxy X. Atrox. Tholian Recluse. IIRC, every KDF "cruiser". All of these can mount dual cannons. Heck, give me 2 of these RCS consoles on my engie's Gal-X and he might try to figure out a dualie build, and my Sci would love the turn rate his Reculse would have - can you say GW III and dual cannons almost whenever I want?
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Hint: it's a Eng Lt/LCdr rank ability that gives a massive boost to turnrate, along with a couple other buffs. And it's basically "cruiser only", as only cruisers come with enough Eng slots to make use of it.
Make a change like proposed ... and with dual Aux2Damp, a cruiser would fly circles around an Escort. And a Vor'cha/Tor'Kaht could reach BoP-level maneurability!
Hell, even former bricks like the Atrox/Vo'quv could suddenly outmaneuver pure Science Ships, as carriers are able to pull off dual Aux2Damp, too.
Yeah, that sounds balanced .... NOT!
If you want a Cruiser to turn quick, you already have the tools for this. It just comes at a price - what you're asking for though is to get super-maneuverabily CHEAP.
Learn to use the tools that you already have first.
Or maybe even: check if you actually need what you're asking for - a tanky beam-boat doesn't need super-turning. Except for the Dreadnought (which will get Saucer Seperation soon, which more than fixes it) and the Bortasqu' (which really is a space-whale
What you're trying to do is not to "fix" cruisers. Cruisers are fine, if used for what they're meant for: tanking. If you want to fly around in a zippy boat, then go for a Sci or Escort. Nothing wrong with those, really. No, what you (and all the other "fix cruisers"-threads) are trying to do is turn Cruisers into some overpowered abomination that can do everything: deal damage as an escort, be as mobile as a Sci, and still tank like a baws.
Why?
Honestly, anything percentage based can be min/maxed and effectively "exploited" upon.
Such as an Escort with a full loadout of these being able to spin like a top.
I think it would make more sense to throw everything into the skill tree math. At least that would make everything more uniform.
So yes, take the 17.5% Blue Field Generator MK XI and make it +XX to Shield Systems.
Make the RCS +XX to Impulse Thrusters. At least this could give us a more relative idea to what exactly we are looking at.
IMHO-- This would bring order to chaos.
Matthew@Matthew486DX -> Eng Lvl 60
FAW/Tank: Tactical Oddyessy T5-U, Tank/Heal Science Oddyessy T5-U, DPS Cruiser: A2B Battlecruiser T5-U, DPS/Debuff Tholian Recluse T5-U
Fleet Admiral: Angry Tribbles
I might be totally wrong, but ... didn't give SIT a percentage increase to turnrate? And SSS a percentage increase to shield strength? ... And ... wasn't that percentage increase additive with percentage increases from consoles and other buffs?
... actually, I'm pretty sure that it worked this way.
Though I could be totally wrong really, since the skill tree is probably the most intransparent thing in the game, with no documentation whatsoever about the true effects of the skills. All we have is guesswork from measured ingame effects.
Yeah, that'd truely make things a lot easier ... not.
I'm not going to answer your last question, simply because you're asking me why I'm trying to do something that I'm not.
You, like some other posters, are either ignoring or missing something: in order to 'break the game' by creating a 'super maneuverable' cruiser, we'd have to give up all our tanking modules, which would make the ship a slow, soft version of an escort that does a lot less damage. In other words, that's not what we're suggesting, so stop blowing things out of proportion.
You also don't seem to understand the consequences of inertia; a cruiser with an excessively high turn rate will lose most of its defense rating when using that maneuverability, because it will be sliding around, instead of actually maneuvering quickly. Turning and maneuvering are two totally different things, as any Negh'Var player can tell you.
Another fallacy I have to point out: cruisers will never be able to 'deal damage as an escort', because escorts still FAR outpace cruisers, even battlecruisers, in terms of damage output. They have WAY more maneuverability than cruisers (if you're going to compare them, compare apples to apples...compare them when they are BOTH using powers, not just one), and they still have more damage output powers and consoles.
Furthermore, escorts would still be king in PVE; I've yet to hear a solid reason that increasing the cruisers' turn rate somehow would really, truly hurt anything or break the game.
So, yeah...please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to make cruisers these overpowered, super-maneuverable DPS-monsters you seem to have nightmares about, and the fact that I'm not just asking for a FREE turn rate increase (as is requested in most cruiser threads) should have told you as much. It's pretty simple: I'm suggesting a turn rate increase in exchange for a weaker tank, with damage output remaining unchanged. It's a trade-off, not a free handout.
Okay, let's compare apples to apples.
Tor'Kaht vs any Escort/Raptor.
Put two of your +3 turnrate consoles in a Tor'kaht, you get the same base turnrate as an Escort/Raptor, while still having two eng consoles left. Most Escorts/Raptors only have two Eng console slots. And even those that have 3: No Escort/Raptor has two Lt or higher Eng BOff slots, so as soon as you throw in Aux2Damp, the Tor'Kaht will be have a higher turnrate than any Escort/Raptor.
Which leaves:
- Tor'Kaht has four Tac consoles, same as most Escorts/Raptors. Even compared to a Defiant, the fifth extra console adds about 7% dps. Which is pretty much equalized by having an extra turret.
- Tor'Kaht has LCdr and Lt Tac BOffs, compared to Cmdr and LCdr BOffs on most Escorts/Raptors. Still, enough to run two copies of TT and CRF each, with one copy of APO for the Tor'Kaht and two copies for the Raptors/Escorts, for 50% APO uptime on Raptors/Escorts, and 25% uptime on the Tor'Kaht. Also, Raptors/Escort can one CRF at one level higher.
Result: ~5% more dps from APO, and ~3% more dps from CRF.
But: the Tor'Kaht can run at least one copy of EptW instead, while still being able to use dual EPtS.
Result: the Tor'Kaht actually deals MORE damage than an Escort/Raptor already, at least if piloted by the same character.
And is a lot more tanky, thanks to better base hull and shield values and a Cmdr Eng slot we haven't used yet.
Yes, it is THAT good. Every KDF player salivates at the stats of that ship. The only, really the ONLY thing that keeps it anywhere near balanced is the slower turnrate - which your idea would "fix".
Next: Carrier vs Sci
Not even a challenge. Carriers can mount Dual Cannons, the only reason they usually don't is ... you guessed it: Slow turnrate.
"Fix" that ... and you've made all Sci ships useless.
Not to mention: The Galaxy refit and the Ody already have saucer seperation, and the Galaxy-X will get it. Add those consoles to them, and they can suddenly win turn-fights against Escorts/Raptors.
Full broadside into an Escort's back, while the Escort can answer with ... what, three turrets?
If PvP wasn't already dead, you'd kill it.
And Escorts/Raptors wouldn't even have a chance to cope. They can't run Aux2Damp, since they lack the Eng slots. APO only has a limited uptime, which would still leave them in the dirt for half the time, even compared to ships that can't run even a single APO. They don't have many Eng consoles, either. And you actually heavily nerfed any benefit they'd get from running an RCS console anyway.
As for inertia: true to some degree. But pretty much meaningless, since cruisers have all the abilities they need to tank through any such slide. And once you give them the ability to achieve better turnrates than anything else in the game, they will inevitably end up in the enemies' weak arcs, and at that point things turn into pure LOL. Yes, it takes longer to get there if you keep sliding - but in the end, the higher turnrate always wins out, if only for the ability to keep your cannons on target while the enemy's are ouf of arc.
Also: sliding is not necessarily bad. It can be used to your advantage, in fact: just make a powerslide that carries you away from your opponent, or past him, and turn to face him - perfect drive-by shooting, while Escorts actually have to move in the direction they're shooting.
Not that I'd not like more mobile cruisers and carriers, would be a lot more fun to fly around with ... but if you can't see that the lack of mobility is a balancing issue ...
Take a school bus, trick it out anyway you want and its still just a school bus on the obstacle course.
You'd be better off requesting for an "Emergency Turn" skill. Cruisers could afford to have a BO with the skill trained.
assault cruiser, 7 deg turn
rcs x2 at +8 each, now we have a modified turn of 23..
that is A LOT for a cruiser.. too much.. as much as the b'rel bop retrofit.
as it is now, you get 7 base +35% x2 = 11.9 if they calculate the % off the base only.. much more cruiser like..
see how this can be abused?
Myself: "I can't believe they'd request absolute increases over relative increases, it makes no sense."
OP: "You're jumoing to conclusions! Incorrect ones at that!"
I hope he's trolling. The alternative is too sad to even consider.
So ... if you don't understand someone, and they tell you you don't they must be trolling because clearly you do understand them? I seriously suggest you ask a question.
If I can pick on someone? (sorry gstamo)
What's to nerf? The RCS console heavy favors escorts. As far as I know it's the only console outside a field generator and a science ship that favors any ship class.
The suggestion would make it neutral, and what's more, there is the unspoken assumption it would clearly break the game when no game breaking numbers have even put in the game.
You might be able to tell me a escort's turn rate and speed are a game feature. You're not going to tell me the ability to engage or disengage a target at will with no working counter is somehow a feature.
I can see how that could be abused...but keep in mind, the number I used for the console was pretty much just a number I pulled out of thin air; it definitely would not be +8, unless the devs were trolling us.
There are also diminishing returns on consoles to take into consideration, but I don't have the exact values in front of me at the moment.
Still better on escorts, but if you want to waste 2 engie slots to make your boat turn like a...slightly more nimble boat you can.
Why not just ask for a level up so weapon power levels on all ships get boosted to offset the TRIBBLE ton of defensive boosts that have shown up in the past year. It'll make the 8 Beam Array builds better since their pressure damage has increased and the DPS ships damage has increased on targets weakened by your FaW 8 Broad Beam cruiser. Or just roll a KDF for 1 of their cruisers. Or acquire one of the lotto cruisers.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
Ok then why not just have every console effect a base number on the ship. I mean after all, why should an escort with 4 engineering consoles get the same amount of resist as a cruiser that doesn't make sense either. Escorts should only get half the bonus from them. Better yet don't let them apply any resist to the hull but increase the amount of resist granted from boff abilities! woot for random overly complex mechanics!
And lets not stop there, all science consoles that modify a skill should do it by a % of your captain skill. No more slotting in a resist console or two without the skill points to back it up.
The ONLY way this would be an issue is if the flat bonus was huge which is not what anyone is recommending.
and the skill Impulse Thrusters is complete garbage (nearly) giving an even smaller bonus than an RCS console for a bunch of valuable skill points. It also provides a relative increase.
The flat bonus you mentioned is by definition a huge bonus at next to no cost.
You've completely ignored the point I and others are making that you're taking ships designed for high Broadside DoT damage and allowing them to vastly increase their dps time on target and use higher damage narrow arc weapons whether it be DBB or DHCs.
If the Broadside DoT damage isn't providing the output is should than address that.
If there are too few practical in game applications for Broadside DoT damage address that.
I provide a potential solution to both.
Myself and others also pointed out some cruiser options for higher turnate. Here's another for you, the saucer seperated Odys.
Others pointed out Boff skills and items and flying techiniques to mitigate low turnrate cruisers.
Lastly, you've jumped the thought train tracks and went off and several tangets for no apparent reason.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter