test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Request: Better Turn Rate for Fed Ships
juniormint10
Member Posts: 30 Arc User
Cryptic,
The turn rate for Federation cruisers like the Galaxy Class are just awful. The turn rate is a discouraging and cumbersome 6 for the Galaxy. It's counterpart, the Vor'cha is slightly better at 7, but the Negh'var gets a whopping turn rate of 9. This is hardly an accurate reflection of starship maneuverability from the TV shows.
The Galaxy was known for being quite maneuverable for a ship of its size. The Negh'Var was slightly larger, and built for sheer strength and force over speed. I know the Galaxy is a tier 4 ship, and the Negh'var a tier 5 ship in STO. However, it still doesn't make sense that a larger battleship should have a higher turn rate. Even the Excelsior has a lower turn rate of 8.
The Exploration Cruiser Retrofit helps somewhat because it can saucer separate, but w.o saucer separation it's still has a sluggish turn rate of 6. Besides, some people might prefer the extra survivability of being unseparated. Therefore, the turn rate should be adjusted for the Galaxy. I suggest making a new turn rate of 9 for the Galaxy so it doesn't handle like a train.
The Constitution has a turn rate of 9 and the K'T'inga has a turn rate of 11. This further unbalances gameplay as the Constitution has the same turn rate of the Negh'var, and the K'T'Inga has an even higher turn rate. I won't go into details on how the Constitution should be equal to the K'T'Inga, that is for a separate topic. But for the current topic, the turn rate of the Constitution should be 11.
The Excelsior should have a turn rate of 10 and the Nebula a turn rate of 9.
Thank you
The turn rate for Federation cruisers like the Galaxy Class are just awful. The turn rate is a discouraging and cumbersome 6 for the Galaxy. It's counterpart, the Vor'cha is slightly better at 7, but the Negh'var gets a whopping turn rate of 9. This is hardly an accurate reflection of starship maneuverability from the TV shows.
The Galaxy was known for being quite maneuverable for a ship of its size. The Negh'Var was slightly larger, and built for sheer strength and force over speed. I know the Galaxy is a tier 4 ship, and the Negh'var a tier 5 ship in STO. However, it still doesn't make sense that a larger battleship should have a higher turn rate. Even the Excelsior has a lower turn rate of 8.
The Exploration Cruiser Retrofit helps somewhat because it can saucer separate, but w.o saucer separation it's still has a sluggish turn rate of 6. Besides, some people might prefer the extra survivability of being unseparated. Therefore, the turn rate should be adjusted for the Galaxy. I suggest making a new turn rate of 9 for the Galaxy so it doesn't handle like a train.
The Constitution has a turn rate of 9 and the K'T'inga has a turn rate of 11. This further unbalances gameplay as the Constitution has the same turn rate of the Negh'var, and the K'T'Inga has an even higher turn rate. I won't go into details on how the Constitution should be equal to the K'T'Inga, that is for a separate topic. But for the current topic, the turn rate of the Constitution should be 11.
The Excelsior should have a turn rate of 10 and the Nebula a turn rate of 9.
Thank you
Post edited by juniormint10 on
0
Comments
I am not starting to list some canon sources that say federation cruisers should be more maneuverable (which is true), they are just boring to fly, thats all.
I have never seen a StarTrek game treating Cruiser so bad as STO.
Here, Cruisers are just big cumbersome flying bricks that cannot turn and only a few have enough firepower to seriously strike back. (Just being able to take Damage is NOT fun! IMHO)
Live long and prosper.
If you really want a nimble cruiser, just get some evasive maneuver Conn doffs, stock up with Aux2Dampeners and other mobility-boosters (including engine batteries), and get Pattern Omega if your cruiser of choice has a LTC tac slot.
You want an innately nimble cruiser, join KDF and fly a Vor'cha (or the fleet Tor'kaht).
turning your build completely upside down so its terrble at doing cruisers things just so you can have turn rate bursts is not a solution, the kdf cruiser doesn't have to do any of that. fed cruisers are an anomaly within the game, everything but enormous carriers turns better, MUCH better. buffing their turn rate by 2 would put them back in the same ball park as everything else, and still be at the very low end. theres no reason for the average fed cruiser to have a turn rate between 3 and 5 worse then a kdf cruiser.
a kdf cruiser can do the same amount of support and healing as a fed cruiser, AND turn better. if it feels like it, it can crank up its turning with 2 or 3 consoles, equip DHCs, and be a dps monster, and a decent support ship. the federation ship simply cant, and it gets no other advantage for its disadvantage. there is a huge imbalance between fed and kdf cruisers because of this, imbalances should be fixed. giving them all+2 to turn would at least allow ships like the regent the ability to effectively use single cannons.
However I have to throw in that Fed cruisers should be less maneuverable than the Klingon counterparts (sans the Negh'var) simply because they are usually twice their mass.
What I think should be done is improve their other stats.
Shields, particularly the hull and also their power systems to reflect their larger size.
In other words: Large Fed cruisers like the Galaxy should be able to tank a lot more than they can now while the Klingon counterparts should be somewhere in the middle between their "escort-type" ships and the Fed cruisers.
You've both got a point. But take this into account. If you increase the turn rate on cruisers, KDF players will cry foul because they will lose their advantage in both PvP and PvE. If you derp KDF cruisers to match their actual mass and have them sacrifice hull strength, armor, and innate damage resistance as they should have per your argument, then KDF players will cry foul because they lose their advantage in both PvP and PvE. HOWEVER if you leave things as is, Federation players will cry bull TRIBBLE because their cruisers blow at doing anything but taking damage.
It's a Q.Q fest out there regardless of what happens. And before you start defending yourselves and saying "no we won't", think carefully, and tell me if that really will be the case for ALL players on ALL sides.
It's a lose lose situation, there is no way for both sides to be happy.
There's an imbalance? Good. 'Cause Fed escorts beat the cr@p out of KDF escorts for the most part, especially the fleet ones. The feddies also have a selection of dedicated dilithium-bought science ships, which are quite effective in the right hands. So, we get the better cruisers as a tradeoff. Or, the Feddies could get used to not being able to turn on a dime in their space whales. I've seen Fed cruisers do fine on tanking and DPS in PvP. . .you just have to know what to do.
The problem with instilling balance into the game again isn't cruiser or science ship pilots on either side, they both stand to benefit, it is the ESCORT pilots that will cry BS and foul play until the cows die because they can't obliterate something in 5 seconds flat on their own and that cruisers and science ships are actually competent combat ships... for some reason this would be wrong in their eyes...
This.
And very much this.
Mainly that the federation/ Star Fleet has better Warp technology and shield technology and the Klingons/KDF has more hull and better impulse technology. The better impulse technology being why thier vessels turn better for the most part.
Fed cruisers may need a 1-2 point buff so their average Turnrate is between 8 and 10 at endgame levels.
Keep in mind that the KDF only has a few BCs at endgame with high turnrates as it is.
The Vorcha family all have a 10 base turn, the K'tingas have an 11, Neghvars have a base 9 and every other BC has a 5.5 turnrate.
Boosting the feds Cruisers without a boost of at least 1-2 points for the BCs will benefit the feds too much as the slowest of thier cruisers will now have 7-8 turnrate with the highest at 10. While our slowest will have a 5.5 making them nothing but targets with no hope of being able to manuever in combat.
If the BCs are also boosted by 1 or 2 points then everybody wins. The feds get more manueverable cruisers for thier gameplay and the KDF keeps the existing but slight advantage of design.
R.I.P
Turn rates (hull)
* 6 = Galaxy/Galaxy-X (40000), Odyssey (42000), Fleet Galaxy (44000)
* 7 = Assault/Star Cruiser (39000), Fleet Star Cruiser (42900)
* 8 = Cheyenne Retrofit (36000), Excelsior Retrofit (39000), Fleet Cheyenne Retrofit (39600)
* 8 = D'Kora (36000)
* 10 = Galor (34500)
* 5.5 = Bortas/Bortasqu' (43500)
* 9 = Negh'Var (39000), Fleet Negh'Var (42900)
* 10 = Vor'cha Retrofit (36000), Fleet Vor'cha Retrofit (39600)
* 11 = K'tinga Retrofit (31500), Fleet K't'inga Retrofit (34450)
Does that mean KDF ships are better? No. There are a whole host of other factors -- number of crew, bridge officer, console, and device slots (all Fed T5 cruisers have 4 devices, all KDF T5 battle cruisers have 3 devices except for the Bortas/Bortasqu') all make a difference.
My STOwiki page | Reachable in-game @PhyrexianHero
Fed Armada: Section 31 (level 730, 2700+ members)
KDF Armada: Klingon Intelligence (level 699, 2100+ members)
Exactly.
What I have observed in flying both Fed Cruisers and KDF Cruisers is that, KDF Cruisers do damage, and Fed Cruisers Tank. Thats why I specced my Vor'cha, Negh'var and Bortasqu' for damage, I fly all of the KDF Battle Cruisers (apart from the K't'inga) and I do fantastically well. When I fly my Fed, I can't do damage, but nobody can destroy me. Thats why I've always gone by the rule of:-
"Want a Tanky Cruiser? Play a Fed ship. Want a DPS Cruiser? Fly a Klingon ship."
That's a rule I love, because it gives me a reason to play both, and be brilliant at what they are intended for. Fed Cruisers are more for Tanking, Klingon Cruisers for DPS. Are they unbalanced? Not in the slightest. Why? Just because one Cruiser (take the Odyssey) is the Cruiser to end all Tanky Cruisers, doesn't mean its the best. The Bortasqu' is even debatable for being the best KDF Battle Cruiser, due to its low turn rate - as a result there is a reason to play all the KDF Battle Cruisers.
My point is, look at the way the fleets are designed. The KDF primarily rely on their Battle Cruisers and sometimes Raptors for pure up damage, with support Bird-of-Prey's, Carriers and Destroyers as support vessels. The Feds rely on Escorts for pure-up damage, because that's what they are designed to do, supported by healing Cruisers and debuffing Science ships. This is why KDF Battle Cruisers are like this, because they are the primary weapon for the KDF whereas the Fed Cruisers are not.
Return of Ja'Dok Series (6 Part Series)
Enemy of the Exile Series (4 Part Series)
Task Force Ja'Dok Series (3 Part Series)
I would trade a device slot for a higher turn rate for my Fed ship any day of the week. I run PvP and most of the time I don't even use the extra device slot, so missing it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (personally).
You can't really go into Kerr'at with a bulky Cruiser. You'll get crushed quickly regardless of build. You must have an Escort or an Intrepid. Otherwise its no fun and a waste of your time going into places like that.
This is why I say buff the turnrates for Fed cruisers and KDF battlecruiser by the same amount of 1-2 points across the board evenly, so the feel of the bioth factions play does not drastically change and and afford a new advantage to iether side.
It will just make the feds feel a little more agile than before and leave the KDF feeeling the same as it always has in combat.
R.I.P
Just about everything else Fedside's been buffed.
Why stop now.
And that's the problem right there.
in STO the Fed cruisers have the exact same shield mod as the KDF counterparts.
I did like the solution from games liks SFC and Klingon Academy that basically gave the Feds more shields overall and balanced it with the reduced turnrate.
Here...this is missing.
HMM, well I've been thinking about this.
And maybe it would make more sense to give both sides differnt flavours of cruiser:
large cruisers that can tank much (Galaxy/Star Cruiser/Negh'varMarauder)
medium cruisers that tank less and maneuver more (Sovereign/Vor'cha)
and small cruisers that can tank even less but actually turn really well (Excelsior/K't'inga).
Right now it seems rather arbitrary which ships have which turnrate and why, at least on the Fed side.
This is not true. I've seen plenty of cruisers tank well AND dish out some DPS (not as much as an escort or maybe a KDF battlecruiser, but still). You just have to get creative with your build and know when to activate skills, and you can't be afraid of speccing into your 1-2 offensive sci skills. Skill timing is an incredibly important feature that some players lack. Even I don't have it down all the time (especially when a nice overpowered fleet defiant is bearing down on me).
Not all of them.
Fed vs. KDF
Your second paragraph is actually quite interesting, and a nice perspective on how the factions work. I agree, the BoPs (at least, at this point) are more of a support vessel that's primarily built for either hit-and-run sneak attacks, or for makeshift science support. That's why it's sorta hard to use a BoP like a Fed escort, they just don't have the stats to match. That's why they often 'gang up' in Ker'rat, having 2-3 attacking a target at once. It ensures a quick, efficient kill. Unfortunately, the way arena matches are set up precludes this behavior, at least in premade matches. Going in without cruiser support will get you killed really quickly.
I would argue that the Excel is a much better single cannon ship than the Regent can dream to be. The Regent is more of a 5-6 beam broadside ship with one dbb in the front and a 180 torp in the rear.
Okay, then let's have a look:
T2
K'tanco has 1,500 less hull, same shield mod and +4 turnrate
T3
K't'inga has 2k less hull, same shield mod and +3 turnrate (and more fwd guns than any other ship at T3)
T4
Vor'cha has 2,500 less hull, same shield mod and +1 turnrate
T5
Negh'var has same hull and shields as any Fed cruiser except Galaxy that has 1k more.
Negh'var outturns every single one of them.
Vor'cha has 3k less hull, same shield mod and outturns the Negh'var.
If you had said the Bortas'qu is a horrible ship, you could've just said that.
And the one that I really find weird is the comparison between the Marauder and the Star Cruiser.
They are completely identical, hull, shields, consoles.
Except the Marauder has a better inertia rating, better impulse mod and a free hangar.
In other words it's just better.
I'm a proud KDF player.
I enjoy playing KDF a whole lot more than the Feds (they are like rice cookies to me) but I just don't get it from a balancing standpoint.
That's the point that I was thinking about. Klinks can have better turn rates and DHC/DC and Feds have more hull and shield multipliers. Otherwise whats the difference between each others ship than the distinctive smell of the Klingon ships
I like the smell of Klingon ships.:)
From "The Left Hand of Destiny" pt.2 page 18:
Okay now I'm gonna go and find something salty and meaty to eat...;)
Sure whatever. I'm too tired to argue.
PS. K'tanco, yes I can see the KDF is completely OP there! Damn that's a cool ship to play with...........
It is a rather pleasant odor.
Turn and Hull multipliers for teh KDf only.
The KDF uses Cannons more prevelantly becuase as a design thier vessels are not multitaskers like the federation Cruisers but built for warfare and conquest.
The feds trek the universe in hopes of finding new societies to join or trade with in the hopes of making new friends, while the KDf patrols the Universe looking for the next race to conquer and bring into the Klingon Empire as a resource provider. Very few races are treated like the Gorn and Orions and given such equal standing.
Frankly factional vessel differences became unbalanced when the Devs starting rebalancing everything based on player feedback. Now there is little difference in how ones vessel choice within a faction feels in iether faction.
R.I.P