test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What is the design intention behind the engineer class and the cruiser

sophlogimosophlogimo Member Posts: 6,507 Arc User
edited October 2012 in PvP Gameplay
There seem to be differing interpretations of what an engineer or a cruiser is supposed to be. I would beg someone from Cryptic to shed light on this.
On Stowiki, the following is stated:

About engineers:

"
Survivability, support generators, and controlling the paths of enemy advance with fieldworks. The Engineering officer can withstand the most damage by improving the performance of their personal shields, while supporting their away team with power generators or by bottlenecking the enemies advance with defensive mine fields. The Engineer's own combat effectiveness is improved by modifications to their firearms or support fire from fabricated turrets and drones.

Engineers have advanced technical skills that are available in both space and ground combat. They are adept as using Starfleet technology to its best advantage. They can help in reducing the amount of damage done to your ship, repair systems quickly, and even do things not in the Starfleet Operations Manual.

On the ground, Engineers can disable enemy technology, build force field generators, and perform various sorts of technological feats.

Careers

Engineers can choose from three different careers. Technicians (buffs and debuffs), Fabrication (turrets), and Combat (battlefield manipulation and explosives).

Technicians

Focus on buffs and debuffs. Their buffs focus on the entire group, unlike a Scientist.
Fabrication

Uses turrets. Most damage focused career for engineers.
Combat

Manipulates the battlefield for the advantage of the engineer. Combat engineers use demolition and explosives to hold the enemy.

Skills

Abilities

Personal abilities are ground and space based. Your characters personal ground skills depend on what type of kit you are using. The space abilities that your Captain can use are listed on the Player ability article. For a list of abilities that your Engineering bridge officers can use see the Bridge officer abilities article.



About cruisers:


Federation Cruisers are large, powerful vessels that excel at long range missions and exploration. Though typically flanked by escorts in combat, cruisers can deliver high damage with their large warp cores and broad complement of weapons. Cruisers are the backbone of Starfleet, fulfilling the most vital roles for the Federation.

Compared to other Federation vessels, Cruisers have strong hulls and average shields. All Federation Cruisers at tier 2 (Lieutenant Commander) or higher have 4 device slots and gain a bonus +5 to all power levels.


So why is it so many people keep claiming that Engineer/cruiser combinations are "little more than healboats"?

Nota bene, I am talking about design goals, not about what the game actually does.


Any of the good people at Cryptic, could you please explain what the intention behind the engineer cruiser is?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I'm not at Cryptic, but I was going to reply to the discussion in the other thread about this - but I held off. Wish I had kept the post I had started to type out though...meh.

    Personally, I didn't like how the discussion was including everything and then some in the discussion. There were too many things that were being included - that were separate items/topics, imho.

    When discussing the Engineer - it should start just with the Engineer. The Engineer is not a Cruiser. The Engineer is not Engineering BOFFs. The Engineer is the Engineer.

    And...the Engineer is a Tank. They're a self-buffing, cleansing, healing Tank. Yes, you can look at their Fleet ability and the bonus they provide to hull repairs. But that's a team ability. It doesn't mean that they're going to be doing the healing. With the Sci Fleet ability, there's a bonus for shield repairs - does Science get called the Healer like the Engineer? Nope. Yet as we saw recently in several threads - it's all about shield tanking/healing. Hrmm, but the Engineer is the Healer?

    No...the Engineer is the Tank.

    Well, who's the Healer? There is no Healer. What?

    Tac -> DPS, Eng -> Tank, Sci-> Buff/Debuff

    There is no "Healer" career.

    But there are Healers! No, there are ships that because of their BOFF stations allow for them to be Healers!

    So a Tac in a Cruiser or Science ship can be a Healer? Er, technically - that's true. They could build the toon*, build the BOFFs, build the ship - etc, etc, etc - to be a Tac Healer. If you had an Eng and a Sci in the team as well, they could even buff the Tac's healing with EFleet and SFleet.

    * Outside of Ground Skills, you can build however you like - they're the same.

    So why aren't there Tac Healers running around? Well, the Tac innate Abilities are about DPS (whether damage, debuffs, accuracy buffs, etc). They do not have the "Tank" of the Eng. They do not have the "DR" buff of the Sci. Tac Healers would be squishy. You could get around the Sci DR buff, simply by having the Sci on the team - but you can't get around the "Tank" of the Eng.

    Well, having that "Tank" - doesn't that mean the Eng is the natural Healer? No, it means the Engineer is a Tank. But I just said the Eng would make the best Healer because of being the Tank... so is the Engineer the Healer or not? Not. Remember, the Healer is the character build, BOFF builds, the ship, the gear, etc, etc, etc.

    But still, if the Engineer has that "Tank" edge - wouldn't it make sense for them to be the Healer? In PvP, I'd have to agree. There's no need for a Tank in PvP. You need to have some tank, but you do not need to be a Tank. It's kind of pointless to be a Tank in PvP. Again, Tank != tank: Tank bad/tank good. So tada, in PvP - the Engineer is the Healer.

    Really? Well, they can't be the DPS. Face it, not even the Sci can really be the DPS. Both the Sci and Eng can do multiple things... the Tac's DPS. Yes, I know I said you could technically make a Tac Healer. Good luck with that.

    So with there being no need for a Tank, the Engineer ends up being the Healer. Science can be Buff/Debuff/Healer. Yep, Sci can be a Healer. Not in the way people would make fun of you trying to be a Tac Healer...you could make the Sci Healer. You're not going to have the "Oh Snap, Tank!" of the Eng - but you can be a Healer.

    If one were to step over into the "Trinity Universe" for a moment, it might look like this:

    Tank - Engineer
    Healer - Science** or Engineer
    Off Heals - Science or Engineer
    Buff - Science
    Debuff - Science or Tactical
    DPS - Tactical

    ** Given the discussion about shield tanking/healing, I'd likely go with Science there alone.

    So you'd have the following:

    Tank - Eng, Healer - Sci, and then the remaining three would be made up of Tac, Eng, and Sci. It would be unlikely that you wanted two Eng and two Sci, but hey - whatever floats your boat. I'd figure on two Tac and then either a second Sci or second Eng.

    Which is nifty over in the "Trinity Universe" - but that's got not a damn thing to do with PvP.

    So bam - the Engineer's the Healer. WTF? I said the Eng was the Tank, wtf? There's no Tank in PvP. If the Eng can be the Tank or the Healer, the Sci can be the Healer or Buff/Debuff, and the Tac can only be DPS... yeah, the Eng's the Healer.

    So all of that - all of those annoying words and bloated explanation - just to say the Eng is the Healer? Well, in PvP...yeah. I believe it's important to understand the overall picture to see where they might have been coming from with their design goals.

    Okay, so whatever...whatever...whatever. How about the Cruiser then?

    I'm going to go smoke and then I'll share my thoughts on that. Here's a sneak peak:

    The Cruiser is the Tank***...
  • husanakxhusanakx Member Posts: 1,674 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Correct the cruiser and the engineer as per Cryptics docs is the TANK...

    However as many pvp people have been saying for some time... it is impossible to TANK in pvp.

    Tanking in PvE revolves around threat control... and forcing NPCs to shoot at you even though you would not be creating enough DPS or Healing to draw argo... (well healing you are capable of drawing argo though)... This is why Cryptic rightly added the threat control skill to the tree during the revamp....

    Now to pvp you can't force Players to attack you... well unless you get in zone chat or onto the forums and make people hate you enough I guess. Still I wouldn't call those skills designed by Cryptic.

    So when it comes to PvP you have to look to the ship and the Captains secondary setups... and its also right there in the documentation. Cruisers are a support ship often flanked in battle by escorts... they still deal dmg but they are NOT the dmg dealers... they are the DPS support ship... read that how you want and fly as you like... you can fly a tactical leaning cruiser and support with DPS, Understanding your ship is not designed to be a wolf... or you can build to what cryptic says is the ships secondary setup... Hull Healing...

    In regards to hull healing there is NO better ship class or Captain type in the game.

    Engi Cruiser is hands down the best hull healer in the game.... that isn't even debatable.

    If that isn't Cryptics goal why are the best hull heals cruiser only ?

    Yes the Engi Captains skills are pretty much all about self preservation... Rotate Shield Freq... M Worker... these have no use at all as far as dealing dmg go... the Engi gets one dmg buff nadion which is on the longest of all the captain type dmg buffs... so it is obviously not a Captain type designed to provide high dps...

    What the Combo of Cruiser and Engi Captain skills allow... is massive hull healing with the kind of Captain backup skills that should allow every engi captain to support with every single boff heal they have... cause they can. If they come under fire they have rotate... and even M. Worker if needed to cover there behinds... and if they where healing a Sci ship or an escort properly playing there roles... they will recieve debuff and fire support from those players.....

    What is your hoping for though soph... for a dev to come here and tell you cruisers are a swiss army knife....
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    *** And there are no Tanks in PvP****.

    So to keep a long story short, much like the Eng themselves - since they provide two options and one option is not valid - bazinga - Cruisers are the Healer!

    Much like the discussion on Tac, Eng, and Sci... Escorts are not going to be Healers. Science Vessels could be Healers or Buffers/Debuffers. The Cruiser though - can't be the Tank. It's kind of funny and sad, mind you - how many folks show up in PUGs with their Tanks. That's another story - or maybe - that IS the story, eh?

    Personally, I prefer the Eng in a Sci than an Eng in a Cruiser. One can argue about that Commander Eng BOFF vs the Commander Sci BOFF... but one can't really argue about the Cruiser waiting for the Universe to turn around the ship compared to the Sci Vessel actually moving around some...eh?

    Course though, I really should say I prefer an Eng in a Carrier than an Eng in a Cruiser. Some would likely say the Sci in the Carrier is better than the Eng in the Carrier. I figure that with the turn rate and being a high priority target though - well, I prefer the Eng in the Carrier.

    **** Yes, I asterisked the asterisk explanation. A premade can bring a Tank in a match against a PUG. It's the most amazing thing, imho. The average PUG player is drawn to the hardest to kill target - ignoring whatever is healing that target and ignoring whatever is killing them. I mean, it's exactly the idiotic AI often displayed by mobs facing the Trinity - they focus on the Tank, ignoring the Healer and DPS. PUG players will do that. Like moths to the flame, they'll target that Tank and allow themselves to be picked off by the other members of the opposing team. It's a simple base for a three-man: Tank, Healer, DPS. The other two members of the team could be off scratching themselves, and you're likely to still roll the average PUG.

    So with all that said - it would appear that both the Engineer Career and Cruisers may need to be addressed in PvP. There's no place for Tanks (/cough - above) in PvP.

    TBH, I think Tac needs some love as well - in a twisted sense. They're too focused on DPS. Sci have options. Tac and Eng...well, don't.

    But of course, that's all just my 2 EC's worth - not adjusted for inflation. And in over 20 years of discussing things online, the thing I've enjoyed most about the STO forums over the years is my capacity to be wrong. That's a tough thing to say, really. I'm not used to being wrong - or at least not being able to weasel my way out of appearing wrong. Here though - there's some really smart guys and gals when it comes to the game. I don't mind eating crow here... though, I prefer when that crow's served in a nice way. I tend to get warnings from the mods when it's served by some of the arrogant schmucks...ahem, anyway.

    Just my 2 EC...
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    You know what, Before season 6 my Excelsiors did a little of everything, my cruisers could do damage and they could tank and they could heal with a limitation, anyone with a build for any one of these purposes would out perform me in that purpose, so while I had a good balance and could support any role asked of me i was never the bast at that role. then season 6 came along and my damage dropped and/or NPC stats went up and I was forced to do this OR that OR the other.

    So I was forced from MY vision of a cruiser as a multi-purpose ship to someone elses vision of a cruiser as a this, that OR the other ship (which with an eng at the helm couldn't hope to do damage if I wanted to).

    Personally I fail to see where it says in either the engineer desc or the cruiser desc "Choosing this will mean you can't do any appreciable damage" or words to that effect.
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • lostusthornlostusthorn Member Posts: 844
    edited October 2012
    What they should do is,
    get rid of the classes completely, we are no tactical officer or science officer. We are in command, the captain. We have a background in engineering or tactical, but that is it.
    We are the 4th branch, Command.

    I would suggest something like this,
    level 0, character generation, you start of in one of the 3 basic branches that give you your first skill set. the tutorial so to speak. From there on you can learn whatever skill you want to invest your experience in. Keep it balance, for example, if you want APA, you can't get SNB or RSF. Just as basic concept.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    adamkafei wrote: »
    Personally I fail to see where it says in either the engineer desc or the cruiser desc "Choosing this will mean you can't do any appreciable damage" or words to that effect.

    I think that's a problem that arises in the translation from one fictive world to another. Heh, I almost said real world - and - to an extent, it also applies to the real world if you consider the world's navies.

    Cruisers cost more. In Star Trek, one could easily argue that Cruisers are the "best" ship. They do not have any of the issues that arise in Star Trek Online. At the same time though, they're not a dime-a-dozen in ST like they are in STO.

    In many cases, a Cruiser would be overkill for the various missions in ST (ST, not STO) and simply would not justify the cost nor time (the resources) to build them for every willy nilly thing that might come up.

    Ships would be mission specific. You wouldn't send the Escort out on that long range mission for all the diplomatic hoopla or scientific rigamarole. Likewise, as I just mentioned - you wouldn't be building Cruisers for things that you would use the Escort to do.

    It's something that one could argue was massively botched going from one fictive world to the other...yet at the same time, not really. They catered to the obvious player desire to fly different ships. I mean, look at the Captain tier on the Fed side: Galaxy, Defiant, Voyager. Yep, some folks preferred TNG, some DS9, and some Voyager. They threw in the "dated" Connie for the collector; but given the timeline - they went where they did. There's folks that argued for being able to fly some of the older ships at endgame. They didn't care if it made sense or not - they wanted to fly their favorite ships! Tada, Fleet versions of some of those ships. Hell, the Ambassador's coming eventually...meh.

    So STO's not quite what one would expect. Fanboism aside, could one really see the Defiant taking out the Enterprise? Heck, Voyager taking out the Enterprise? But that's ST...not STO. This is STO - so it is what it is.

    That being said, I really wish they had gone with a more ship based system of leveling. Not quite like what they do where they force you into a shuttle or a fighter for certain missions, but more akin to if you're in X ship - you do A missions - Y ship - B missions, etc, etc, etc. But that's all PvE...

    ...in PvP? I wish they'd done something more akin to what CCP does for their tournaments in EVE. Of course, that would make it a major PITA to try to PUG PvP...lol.

    There's supposed to be some revamp taking place with Season 7-9, no? Have to wonder what that's going to involve - how it will affect the various Careers, Ships, and all the rest.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    What they should do is,
    get rid of the classes completely, we are no tactical officer or science officer. We are in command, the captain. We have a background in engineering or tactical, but that is it.
    We are the 4th branch, Command.

    I would suggest something like this,
    level 0, character generation, you start of in one of the 3 basic branches that give you your first skill set. the tutorial so to speak. From there on you can learn whatever skill you want to invest your experience in. Keep it balance, for example, if you want APA, you can't get SNB or RSF. Just as basic concept.

    It's kind of funny, thinking about it. Look at the skills the character has - then look at the abilities the character has. The skills are mainly about improving what the BOFFs can do, rather than what the character can do. The BOFFs have the majority of the abilities.

    So in a sense, we are that Command branch with some background in Tactical, Science, or Engineering that gives us some basic abilities from that background.

    That being said though - I kind of like what you suggest there; since it would (imho) better reflect the growth of a character. The problem of course though on the Fed side is that there is a much more organized hierarchy with Starfleet. It's a little more rigid - maybe a lot more rigid.

    Still though, Starfleet offered all sorts of varieties within those areas. Heck, we see that in the DOFFs and even BOFFs.

    The character is just a shell - defined by the ship, BOFFs, and DOFFs.

    It could be interesting to make the character more advanced - offer additional choices as found from BOFFs/DOFFs... that a character could select as they level up.
  • carl103carl103 Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Fanboism aside, could one really see the Defiant taking out the Enterprise? Heck, Voyager taking out the Enterprise?

    At the time the defiant was built, yes the defiant would clean house with the enterprise as we where still on the D. But yeah any later enterprise, nah.

    The real issue here is that in Star Trek proper cruiser really where the workhorses of the fleet, they just used older less capable cruisers for the lesser assignemnts. Escorts didn't even exist till after Wolf 359, and science ships where used primarilly as means of investigating known "safe2 science stuff as they where poorely armd. Even Voyager in Star Trek lore is more of a light cruiser than a true pure science ship.

    But then Starfleets cruiser focus makes sense, they where heavy into deep space exploration and needed ships that could not only do good science, but could stand upto whatever unknown agressors they might run into and still be able to do all this whils being away from a major starbase for years at a time, (i seem to think we had one example of a Nebulae class that was sent on a 10 year mission in cannon).

    Natrually though they wanted a bit more gamepla veriaty than all crisers and people did want to fly their defiant's. So they expanded the escort and science ship concepts beyond their cannon area's.
  • ussultimatumussultimatum Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    husanakx wrote: »
    Correct the cruiser and the engineer as per Cryptics docs is the TANK...

    However as many pvp people have been saying for some time... it is impossible to TANK in pvp.

    Tanking in PvE revolves around threat control... and forcing NPCs to shoot at you even though you would not be creating enough DPS or Healing to draw argo... (well healing you are capable of drawing argo though)... This is why Cryptic rightly added the threat control skill to the tree during the revamp....

    Now to pvp you can't force Players to attack you... well unless you get in zone chat or onto the forums and make people hate you enough I guess. Still I wouldn't call those skills designed by Cryptic.

    So when it comes to PvP you have to look to the ship and the Captains secondary setups... and its also right there in the documentation. Cruisers are a support ship often flanked in battle by escorts... they still deal dmg but they are NOT the dmg dealers... they are the DPS support ship... read that how you want and fly as you like... you can fly a tactical leaning cruiser and support with DPS, Understanding your ship is not designed to be a wolf... or you can build to what cryptic says is the ships secondary setup... Hull Healing...

    In regards to hull healing there is NO better ship class or Captain type in the game.

    Engi Cruiser is hands down the best hull healer in the game.... that isn't even debatable.

    If that isn't Cryptics goal why are the best hull heals cruiser only ?

    Yes the Engi Captains skills are pretty much all about self preservation... Rotate Shield Freq... M Worker... these have no use at all as far as dealing dmg go... the Engi gets one dmg buff nadion which is on the longest of all the captain type dmg buffs... so it is obviously not a Captain type designed to provide high dps...

    What the Combo of Cruiser and Engi Captain skills allow... is massive hull healing with the kind of Captain backup skills that should allow every engi captain to support with every single boff heal they have... cause they can. If they come under fire they have rotate... and even M. Worker if needed to cover there behinds... and if they where healing a Sci ship or an escort properly playing there roles... they will recieve debuff and fire support from those players.....

    What is your hoping for though soph... for a dev to come here and tell you cruisers are a swiss army knife....


    I agree with the above assessment completely.
  • guriphuguriphu Member Posts: 494 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    As mentioned, pure tanking is not an important factor in PvP. A hard target that doesn't pose a threat can be completely ignored without changing the outcome of the battle.

    Engineers are effective healers because they are tanks, and effective tanks because they are healers (in cruisers) debuffers (in scis) or damage-dealers (in escorts). Engi can afford to heal because he keeps his ability to survive if he gets focused more so than a sci does, courtesy of his innate tanking abilities, which means engis tend to be the best healers, although scis have good healing capacity, too, because Sci Fleet and Scattering Field improve the effectiveness of their heals through team resists.

    Sci-cruisers work because scis are subnucleonic beam delivery platforms and precious little else: they trade a little bit of tanking for the best spike-debuff in the game. Tac-cruisers don't work because cruisers don't have enough DPS to work with to do any of the fun tac tricks, unlike scis (tbr, psw, fbp, etc) and escorts.

    Engi-cruisers work because of the aforementioned to put out massive healing while staying rock-solid against enemy attacks themselves.

    Engi-scis and engi-escorts work pretty well along the same lines: having the added durability and higher power levels, at the sacrifice of spike-debuffing (sci) and spike damage (tac). Sci-scis and sci-escorts work on the same basis... doing whatever the ship can do, a little worse than an engi, plus some team buffs, sensor scan, and the all-important subnucleonic beam. Tac/sci I already mentioned, and tac/escort I already mentioned.

    I would love to see cruisers given more versatility (not more power, but more options!) In my opinion, they should get a +2 turn rate improvement across the board, and have major improvements to their underutilized powers, in the form of either direct improvements (Aceton Beam), indirect improvements (make Engineering Team clear Boarding Party, NOT Tactical Team, to indirectly buff both ET and BP), or tier reduction (DEM, possibly some of the non-healing Aux2Whatever powers). Some debuffing of over-used healing/tanking powers would probably be warranted in this circumstance. I liked the idea of linking RSP and EPTS. Hopefully this might open them up to tactical officers, and provide alternate roles for Scis and Engineers who fly them. It would certainly make them better match the description of cruisers in that you cited, as strong all-around ships.
  • edited October 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • edited October 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited October 2012
    It's clear to me stos role for engineer and cruiser
    Broken

    I'n his engineering ship he is almost a liability
    On any space STF universally unwanted on the load
    Screen if two or more load the lone Tac warps away
    The science see 3 cruisers and most likely will
    Leave especially if there there for tbe optional

    On the ground everyone yells at him not to deploy
    His agro drawing useless turrets his Dps is low dies a lot
    Because he can't deploy his healing device because
    He is scared he will be yelled at again.

    The buff that allows his turrets to do any damage is
    On another kit so a second engineer is required
    To allow his turrets to do any damage.

    A Tac using a close combat melee kit can do more
    Damage than a engineer with a demolations kit to
    A shield generator at kit ground

    Pleazzzzzzze that is worse than ridiculous

    Common sense must factor I'n somewhere

    What about it STO fix buff engineer or delete the class
    It's embarrassing
    Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
    Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
    Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng

    JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
  • dassemstodassemsto Member Posts: 792 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Based on Trek, (not what Cryptic says trek is) I'd say the following:

    Escorts: Based on what the Defiant did, these should be hitting hard and fast (burst) and still be able to take quite a beating. To sum it up: 100% Killer and 50% tank.

    Cruisers: Based on Picards Enterprise, it should be able to take a helluva beating (tank), deliver moderate assistance to nearby allies (moderate healing), deliver slow but high damage (sustained DPS) and also be able to pull of some weaksauce science tricks (moderate CC). To sum it up, it should be 50% everything and 100% tank.

    Sci ships: Based on Voyager, it should be able to deliver weapons damage almost at cruiser level, be very able to assist allies, and should be able to pull off crazy sci magic. It should also be quite fragile. To sum it up: 100% CC and healer, moderate damage (sustained and burst), weak tank.

    I think following these patterns would be nice. What is wrong in STO atm is:

    Escorts: Too tanky, to high sustained damage.
    Cruisers: Too good healing, kind of weak sustained damage maybe.
    Sciships: Too weak CC, sustained damage and healing. Too strong tanking.

    my 2c anyway...
  • dassemstodassemsto Member Posts: 792 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Currently, this is true, but it needn't be.

    To make a cruiser the tank, people would have to target it. It has supreme survivability, so for it to be worth targeting, it would have to represent an equally big threath.

    This means, it would have to do a lot more damage than an escort, OR a lot more CC than a sciship. Wich would in turn render escorts or sciships useless... :/
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    About cruisers:


    Federation Cruisers are large, powerful vessels that excel at long range missions and exploration. Though typically flanked by escorts in combat, cruisers can deliver high damage with their large warp cores and broad complement of weapons. Cruisers are the backbone of Starfleet, fulfilling the most vital roles for the Federation.

    "Though typically flanked by escorts in combat" I think this is more about combat formations in effect you have your cruiser and it flies with escorts for damage support, evidenced by "cruisers can deliver high damage with their large warp cores and broad complement of weapons" So it says cruisers deal high damage... it doesn't say "Cruisers are outperformed for damage by everything else (except a shuttle)" and if you look at the story mode you see that actually all the ships put out about the same damage, then you get to the endgame content and suddenly its a completely different story.

    All the ships should deal damage in different ways and (in my opinion) escorts shouldn't do more than 300 more than either of the others. for example a cruiser should use it's survivability to deal damage by brute force i.e. sit at a distance and broadside, escorts should do it in spikes picking their moment and position carefully to get best results while science does damage by means of debuffs to defence and such.

    That would make the game more true to both Star Trek AND the games description of the ships (which happens to be based on Star Trek)
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • edited October 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • guriphuguriphu Member Posts: 494 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    jellico1 wrote: »
    A Tac using a close combat melee kit can do more
    Damage than a engineer with a demolations kit to
    A shield generator at kit ground

    Cryptic completely broke mines and bombs a couple weeks ago, which are apparently on schedule to get fixed. However, it is routine for an engineer on Enemy Neutralization to solo the shield generators in KA Ground Elite, which only a fireteam or omega tac can duplicate. Drop your mines and bomb right up against the generator, have the person running the room lower the shield, trigger your bomb, fire pulsewave secondary. You should be done; if you're not, a couple primaries will finish the job before the shield closes.

    I don't have a space engi, but since you're an expert on ground, I welcome you to fight against my ground engineer any time you like. You can bring any kit you desire, on any class. And we'll see exactly how weak engineers are.
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited October 2012
    Sounds good we fleet pvp almost everyday

    Now if I get my pc back from the tech tomorow
    I might make it back online depends on the tech
    And what ever is wrong with my pc

    That's the reason I'm all over the forum, no pc

    That's why Starfleet had backup systems

    I need a backup pc !

    I can solo the kit gens with my Tac character
    I'n her melee kit with no problem

    I've almost quit playing my engineer but he has
    Got class 12 Maco armor so he has did it all
    Many times over both space sets as well.

    I look foward to the match :)
    Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
    Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
    Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng

    JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
  • dassemstodassemsto Member Posts: 792 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    Make Acetone Field an AOE ability with a 5 km radius, that is not easily cleared and that (this is important!) applies a damage-debuff to the victim vs. all targets except the originating vessel. If the originating vessel is destroyed, the effect ends. The damage debuff could be lower than it is now, and the damaging effect of AF could be removed (it is easily ignored anyway).

    hmm... not bad... It might be better if it was a -XX to healing? Like -50 to shield emitters. A healing reduction is more needed than a damage reduction anyway, and it should be easier to implement as it affects all members of one faction. And the person applying it should ofc have a big sign over his head saying "i'm doing this!"
  • zarathos1978zarathos1978 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    dassemsto wrote: »
    hmm... not bad... It might be better if it was a -XX to healing? Like -50 to shield emitters. A healing reduction is more needed than a damage reduction anyway, and it should be easier to implement as it affects all members of one faction. And the person applying it should ofc have a big sign over his head saying "i'm doing this!"


    Oh, this is good idea. It would make tank builds viable in PvP because there will be reason to attack the tank if it was seriously TRIBBLE up with healing/damage of enemy team. Not to mention that it would made eng/cruisers more viable/effective/desired? in the game.
  • dassemstodassemsto Member Posts: 792 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Oh, this is good idea. It would make tank builds viable in PvP because there will be reason to attack the tank if it was seriously TRIBBLE up with healing/damage of enemy team. Not to mention that it would made eng/cruisers more viable/effective/desired? in the game.

    And, to thicken the plot. This ability should have 45 second duration and 1 minute CD. giving it a 3/4 total uptime. It should also reduce the users weapons power by 50-75!

    Now that's opportunity cost for you! A self-balancing ability, where you gain one advantage at the cost of another. This way, it could have almost full uptime without TRIBBLE with balance too much :)
  • edited October 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • zorena#3961 zorena Member Posts: 254 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Adding ""hard"" Taunts to pvp would be really bad then you make it really silly imo. Sure your aoe field sounds like a better change to the environment. I don't think people fully appreciate the damage output from the cruiser when used properly tho it can reach the same sort of ballpark numbers as an escort, but they are different obviously in the way the damage is applied.

    I dont think its a good idea to make cruisers "do more damage" in relation to for example escorts because then we are back to S3 when it was all cruisers and the fact is that the all cruiser team i still viable when it comes to high-end pvp but obviously you and general population would like the cruiser to be the "best" pvp ship for pugging.

    Fact is the excelsior can me made to work with burst too or could when beam overload wasn't gimped we had Linty running cruiser for abit in the excelsior with beam overload2-3 and used it with a single DBB and then he could switch back to broadsiding/healing when needed.
    Noone.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    And I think that is what should be addressed. You can have tanks in PvP, given the right set of powers. They are just missing from STO yet.

    It's difficult for me - to acknowledge the Tank role in PvP. By saying that you're going to modify/add abilities that scream "Target Me!" - well, that's kind of what's happened with them being the Healer. The Healer screams...target me...so that's already there.

    When I think of target priority, I think of the following:

    Healer - whether Eng or Sci
    Buffer/Debuffer - Sci
    DPS - whether Tac, Sci, or Eng
    The guy trying to Tank.

    To me, a Tank is the biggest threat - it ignores all logic. The mob targets the Tank, ignoring the actual threat of the DPS while the Healer keeps the Tank alive. The way the Tank works in most games...is...mentally deficient, to be kind.

    That being said though, I think there's room to put Eng in that second level if they're not the Healer. I think that would also tie into the support aspect of the Cruiser. It wouldn't be as the Tank - but it would provide options to Engineers or those flying Cruisers.

    To an extent, part of that comes from looking at what an Eng does on the Ground compared to in Space. Look at the abilities...

    Space: 4 Emergency Power, 3 Aux, Boarding Party*, Engineering Team, DEM, 2 Shield, and the Wet Plasma TRIBBLE.../cough.

    Ground: Mines, Repairs, Shields Galore, Debuffs, Pets...

    Could you imagine Space versions of the Engineer Ground BOFF abilities? Tada, you've got that second level target. Make it so certain of those abilities are only available from the Cruiser (something as simple as size or power needed to pull that stuff off)...and tada again.

    Both Tac and Sci... you can (well, I can - and not a "YOU" you, just a general you) see how there is a concept there with both Ground and Space. With Eng? Er...well...er...no. I think it's broken there. It did not translate well in the least.

    If the Eng Space was like the Eng Ground, in the way one can see it for Tac/Sci - I believe that would fit that "support" side.

    We'd have:

    Heals - Eng/Sci (Cruiser/Sci/Carrier)
    Support - Eng/Sci (Cruiser/Sci/Carrier)
    DPS - Tac

    ...and I think we'd be off to a good start.

    Sadly, unfortunately, and all that jazz though - I don't see that happening. Why? Because it's kind of easy to see where all the Engineering "abilities" ended up. Just look at the Zen Store ships, the Lockbox ships, and the Lobi ships. Tada...there's all the missing Engineering stuff...meh.

    * I'm still trying to figure out why this isn't a Tac ability. That's not the only one of those that feels out of place.
  • edited October 2012
    This content has been removed.
  • shimmerlessshimmerless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Sadly, unfortunately, and all that jazz though - I don't see that happening. Why? Because it's kind of easy to see where all the Engineering "abilities" ended up. Just look at the Zen Store ships, the Lockbox ships, and the Lobi ships. Tada...there's all the missing Engineering stuff...meh.

    This is a really good point (among others that you've made very well in this thread).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    vids and guides and stuff

    [9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    dassemsto wrote: »
    To make a cruiser the tank, people would have to target it. It has supreme survivability, so for it to be worth targeting, it would have to represent an equally big threath.

    This means, it would have to do a lot more damage than an escort, OR a lot more CC than a sciship. Wich would in turn render escorts or sciships useless... :/

    The danger of a Cruiser is his durability. If built well a cruiser can saddle up next to his target, lock them down with TB or somesuch, Turtle up a bit for protection and start firing at his target without to much worry about dying right away.
    This makes the Cruiser a threat, its durability is longer than a escort.
    This also the Cruisers liability if it can't kill its target quick enough, though that is not always needed on a team where the cruiser can merely weaken the target for the escorts to finish off.
    SO the Cruiser does not need to be a lot more damaging then an escort or have more CC than as cience to be a threat, they just need to be played to thier strengths over thier weaknesses based on thier Player Toon class and build design.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • dassemstodassemsto Member Posts: 792 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I still like the thought that the presence of one ship running a specific AoE ability that is somehow influencing the passives of all enemies in range.

    A reduction of damage to the other team? I think not. Tanks are more than tanky enough already.

    The point is, it should be an AoE ability that is by itself not doing any harm, but is sabotaging the efforts of every enemy near it to the extent where taking down the tank first may be the best path to go for them.
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    The question remains to be answered if that is actually the intended role of the Engineer cruiser. Description and available powers indicate otherwise.

    True, Cryptic hasn't answered - but I think in looking at the abilities; it does come across as the Engineer being the "Tank"...imo.

    Part of that comes from how many of the Engineer's abilities are self heals or bonuses to resistance.

    Hrmm, I'll do a longer post/reply in regard to this after a smoke.
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    I like this observation. So all that would need to be done is look at the Engineering boff abilities in space and make them more like their ground counterparts. Mines, turrets, fighters...

    I'm kind of surprised that the Carrier ended up a Sci ship rather than an Eng ship. Though, I can see where that happened because of the lack of Sci on the KDF side - so tada, the Vo'quv. Then again, thinking about Engineers and their "support" role - the same point could be made about the Draguas and the Varanus. Heck, I think the whole what do we do for Sci with the KDF approach they took kind of borked things up.

    Of course, if you step back for a moment - that Sci has Subsystem Targeting instead of Eng - well, that's a problem in of itself, eh? Subsystem Targeting feels like a Space version of Eng Ground, eh? Engineers should know how ships work the best - thus, they should be the ones that do the Subsystem Targeting... Tac can pick up the odd ability to do it as well, because they're going to be looking for weaknesses, etc, etc, etc.

    Again, one could say that Engineering abilities disappeared into the C-Store...er...Zen Store - by looking at the KDF ships that logically should be Eng ships. It's been an issue all but from the start.
Sign In or Register to comment.