test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

This Week's Cruiser Thread

1235»

Comments

  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    momaw wrote: »
    The point was made that the KDF doesn't complain about their cruisers being useless. And I told you why. They turn better and they have, at minimum, +5 more power to everything. I didn't suggest anything beyond that.

    They only have that +5 to everything if they use the Plasmonic leech and not every KDF player uses it all the time. Thats why I asked as the Devils Advocate.

    So they DA question remains, Why buff Cruisers for an option that the KDF may not be using or may not remain KDF exclusive in the future?
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    ericphail wrote: »
    How about giving cruisers an inherent 10 - 20 degree boost to the fire arc of beams (and MAYBE torps) meaning broadsides are on target more often and creating a small arc where DBBs and aft arrays overlap (the super broadside sweet spot).

    Allows a bit more punch, reduces the pain of bad turn rate, (and offers a new concept 4DBB 4 Array sweet spot hunting)

    Or tweak BO and FAW to be a bit better than they currently are.
    I like this idea. Honestly I think beams have more problems than cruisers, since nothing at all synergies with broadside firing.

    Beam Arrays have a 270 degree firing arc. They overlap for the Broadside just fine.
    The only limit is the fore mounted Beam arrays can not fire backwards down the ship and the aft can not fire forward if the ship is facing its target head-on.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    what if cruisers were able to carry a better hull/hull repair rate? while cruisers have the most crew, it still takes a long time for a cruiser to repair especially when that crew somehow gets blown up...

    This I can agree with as the large crew on Cruiser seem to die faster and regen slower than small crews on escorts. I think that mechanic should be reversed.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    momaw wrote: »
    I actually came here to underscore this point.

    Normally on my D'kora I was using 3 dual beams with FAW3 and a torpedo spread. Pretty effective. I recently read about how unbelievably abso-freakalutely amazing Auxiliary To Battery was, and I wanted to try something new on the ol' space crab so I went for 6 beam arrays in a classic broadside cruiser arrangement.

    Now let's consider:
    * Power level set to 100, and my actual power is at least 125
    * Switch to Battle Mode, +10 additional power
    * Use Emergency Power to Weapons, +22 additional power
    * Use Auxiliary to Battery, +17 additional power

    For those playing at home, this means my effective weapon power level should be at least 174... And this still wasn't enough power to fire off a Fire At Will 3 broadside without my power level dropping in the middle of the salvo. The only ways to use beam broadsiding at full power are to use either Nadion Inversion, or use Directed Energy Modulation with the doff that adds drain resist while DEM is active. Both of these have a stupidly long cooldown. There's batteries too I guess, and you know what? Stupidly long cooldown.

    Cruisers are typified as being all about the beam broadsides, and in reality, this mode of combat has so many limitations and support prerequisites just to reach any kind of parity with cannons that it's hard to justify it.

    :(

    Sounds as if the Devs have removed the overclock concept/ability that one could use to both boost damage and keep power levels high for a duration of firing an attack. If so, thats sad as it was one way a Cruiser could be competitive.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • canis36canis36 Member Posts: 737 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    bitemepwe wrote: »
    Sounds as if the Devs have removed the overclock concept/ability that one could use to both boost damage and keep power levels high for a duration of firing an attack. If so, thats sad as it was one way a Cruiser could be competitive.

    I've heard about this a lot, but even when people were swearing by it I never saw it work. I even tried the exact builds they were touting as making it awesome (EPTW III, EPS Transfer, Nadion Inversion, and Weapons Battery all going at the same time and I was still seeing my power levels hovering at between 75-90 depending on how staggered the beams were firing).
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    canis36 wrote: »
    I've heard about this a lot, but even when people were swearing by it I never saw it work. I even tried the exact builds they were touting as making it awesome (EPTW III, EPS Transfer, Nadion Inversion, and Weapons Battery all going at the same time and I was still seeing my power levels hovering at between 75-90 depending on how staggered the beams were firing).

    It has worked for me in the past based off the same build ideas as you most likely found in the forums. Here is the player who I believe pioneered the research,
    If theres a topic you have a question on, and you don't see anything addressing it, feel free to ask about it.
    I say take him on the offer and see if they have changed it.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • paragon92518paragon92518 Member Posts: 268
    edited December 2012
    Basically I am asking you guys to keep it clean, and just put your thoughts out there. Engage!

    Ok..there is a big Cruiser controversy...here's the fix to make everyone happy. Some players hate the snails pace turn rate, others think all Cruisers do is heal, and others simply say Cruisers cannot deal enough DPS. Well, there's a simple, elementary, solution to make everyone happy.

    Listen up Devs

    For all Fed Cruisers (and their KDF counterparts), make 3 "Slide Bars" similar to the engine speed bar. Yes I'm well aware that there are different "profiles" you can set your ship to already present in the game. For Cruisers only, remove those options completely. Replace them with 3 bars. One for DPS, one for Turn Rate, and one for Healing. Based on your opponent (say a Borg cube) you would want to "jack up" your heal/DPS and wouldn't care so much about your turn. You could "borrow" from your turn rate bar to make your ship perform better. Lets say your ship is a Galor and you crank up your DPS/HEAL bars and drain the turn rate. Perhaps it decreases your turn rate to that of say,...a Galaxy Class but increases DPS significantly. Does anyone follow me on this. 3 bars, all of which can be barrowed from each other and used to increase power significantly in one of the 3 major areas (turn, heal/damage).

    It's so simple an elementary school kid could figure it out. The amount of time to transfer your bars over to another area would be as fast as your hand can do so with your mouse. Your powers will still be recharging at their same spees anyway.

    And this would only apply to Cruisers. If your ship turns at a snails pace of 7, maybe you can make it a 10 for the time it takes to fight your enemy at the cost of heals/DPS. If you need DPS and turning really doesn't matter, jack up your DPS bar and it will give your ship enough juice to really do some inflicting damage (but keep in mind) more DPS would reduce the effectiveness of the other 2 categories. Of course whatever Cryptic designs a ship "by default" would be the base stats of the ship but how/when a player used their 3 slide bars would be up to them. Turn faster? OK More damage to actually kill off that escort? OK Enough time to heal your hull fast enough? No problem. Give and take. Distribute and re-distribute accordingly. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

    In the worlds of Emeril Lagasse...BAM! be done with it!!!!


    (and hopefully this will end the darn Cruiser threads :D
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    I'll go along with this if I retain the option to use the current version
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    I think I feel like throwing up...
    It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. B)
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    I think I feel like throwing up...

    There's nothing wrong with paragon's idea so long as the current method is still available
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    adamkafei wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with paragon's idea so long as the current method is still available

    There is no need for it. We already have the ability to do that with power presets and the like.

    I.E
    DPS/Tank

    75/75/25/25 or 90/60/25/25 or 60/90/25/25

    Speedboat

    25/25/75/50

    Healer:

    25/50/25/100

    All 3 of his "bars" in power presets. -.-
    It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. B)
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    All 3 of his "bars" in power presets. -.-

    hence my comment on the matter
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • pegasussgcpegasussgc Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    I do think cruisers are underpowered, they aren't useless but they need a little something. My idea would be to give cruisers a much higher power level boost, maybe a inherent warp core potential boost. You should be able to put 150, not 125 max towards weapons OR shields OR engines OR auxiliary at any given time. Cruisers are big, they have bigger power plants, they should be able to put a lot more power towards a given subsystem than any other class ship.

    You should be able to broadside with 7 or 8 beam arrays and not dip down below 80 or so weapon power, beam overload being the exception.

    Now, an alternative (not the preferable one IMO) to giving cruisers more power, would simply be to give them a lot more hull strength. I don't think this would be well received by PVPers though, even though borg spheres have many, many times the hull strength of a cruiser it's same size and escorts have little issue ripping through them.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    adamkafei wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with paragon's idea so long as the current method is still available

    Other than a completly uneeded revamp of the games mechanics to suit the playstyle of one aspect of STOs playerbase that is an additional option only availible to cruisers and battlecruisers if they wish because some feel there gameplay is subpar in speed, DPS or turning at any given moment in comparison to other vessel choices in the game?

    Yeah that makes perfect sense.

    Have a ASB Heretic. I think I could use one too.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • skyranger1414skyranger1414 Member Posts: 1,785 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    pegasussgc wrote: »
    I do think cruisers are underpowered, they aren't useless but they need a little something.........

    Now, an alternative (not the preferable one IMO) to giving cruisers more power, would simply be to give them a lot more hull strength.....

    You're right on cruisers needing something, and I can tell you what it is.

    Cruisers need an instruction manual. One that describes what its design parameters are and what roles its designed to fill. People's feeling of cruisers being UP stem from 2 reasons. First they have a hard time separating Star Trek lore from game balance and design issues (ie. cruisers are BIG so should automatically get X, Y, or Z. OR, fed cruisers are battleships!). And second because they neither know WHAT cruisers are meant to do nor HOW to make them do it. Hence the necessity of an instruction manual.

    The irony is that there's a lot of great cruiser build threads on these very forums.

    About the only thing I feel cruisers really need is a slight, very slight buff in turning. That alone makes them more fun to play. Personally I'm a big fan of having 2+ RCS consoles on cruisers the difference it makes is simply amazing. Using the Regen't torp had also had a noticeable impact.
  • baudlbaudl Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    You're right on cruisers needing something, and I can tell you what it is.

    Cruisers need an instruction manual. One that describes what its design parameters are and what roles its designed to fill. People's feeling of cruisers being UP stem from 2 reasons. First they have a hard time separating Star Trek lore from game balance and design issues (ie. cruisers are BIG so should automatically get X, Y, or Z. OR, fed cruisers are battleships!). And second because they neither know WHAT cruisers are meant to do nor HOW to make them do it. Hence the necessity of an instruction manual.

    The irony is that there's a lot of great cruiser build threads on these very forums.

    About the only thing I feel cruisers really need is a slight, very slight buff in turning. That alone makes them more fun to play. Personally I'm a big fan of having 2+ RCS consoles on cruisers the difference it makes is simply amazing. Using the Regen't torp had also had a noticeable impact.

    WORD! there even is a user manual, sort of, it is just very "cryptic". the description the game gives, says really nothing at all in some cases, as if the devs didn't know themselves anything about their ships.
    Go pro or go home
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Will someone then please, pretty please, post or link me to one of these builds. I have flown every cruiser build I can find on these forums and found each and every one lacking in PvE. I don't care what the hull is I'll get the ship (bar tier 5 starbase ships anywho).

    I got me a Galor, show me one of these uber builds and let me put it threw the paces.

    *edit*
    If it can carry DHCs then ignore those builds I have flown them and find them acceptable in performance.
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    bareel wrote: »
    Will someone then please, pretty please, post or link me to one of these builds

    Here you go.
    Skill layout if you want that as well

    I don't think you'd call it an "Uber build" but I think it's as close as I'm going to get (Yes it's the fleet excelsior however the only real difference is the 4th tac console).
    Notes: 1: Keep a stack of weapon batteries handy the build uses two interchangable tac officers depending upon what it's doing, 2: I made a slight adjustment to the console layout to include a monotanium rather than EPS Flow reg

    I use a keybind for the following: TT, EPtW, EPtS, Aux2SIF

    I'm waiting for an ensign engineer skill that doesn't conflict with other skills I already have though as it will be the finishing touch I think. I haven't yet found the line where she gets (Fairly, torps from nowhere aren't fair :P) beaten, I can tank 1 HSE cube at a time solo and multiple with cross healing, you may also need a few heals here and there for ISE tac cube but other than that it tanks anything you can throw at it while doing a nice 6-7k per volley (Spikes at 23k followed by 6k if you get the timing right)
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • bladeofkahlessbladeofkahless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    I do now, and have always been partial to the Engineer-Cruiser combo.
    Tanking being their strength, I play to it.

    I've flown every cruiser at one time or another.
    Tried dang-near every imaginable build (some only in short stints).

    I can confidently say that I am, by far, most comfortable in a cruiser.
    That I prefer it... the gameplay, the roles, aesthetics, etc...

    Power level and ability?
    I think it's relative.
    My personal opinion as one who tanks with them:

    I think they may well be the closest to being balanced.
    I get nowhere near escort-level DPS.
    My build focused on survivability and aggro management first.
    But, I know cruisers CAN do respectable damage.
    As it should be, I think.

    Also, with fleet variants, our bridge officer station arrangements now vary quite a lot.
    While most aren't necessarily to my liking, I can see how others would, and I think that's awesome :cool:

    Improvements?
    None really.
    If anything at all, I think I'd ask for a slight increase in durability, but that's a not very necessary. Most PvE does little more than scratch the paint on my Gal-R.
    Elite STF's though... well, I'd love it if the ol' girl could take an invisi-torp a little more gracefully :o
    I mean hell, she can take a donatra thalaron blast to the face.
    Sure, maybe she limps a bit after, and looks about as well as she feels :P

    Also, I very rarely PvP. I can't speak on that.

    **EDIT**
    Actually, I DO have one improvement.
    The Gal-R needs that ensign engineer station to be universal. Should have always been that way.
    They did it for it's KDF mirror (the fleet Negh'var).
    People like it how it is, they can use it for an eng. Others may not.
    Do the gal some justice. She more than deserves it.
    /rant

    It's me, Chrome. [Join Date: May 2009]

    "Oh, I may be captain by rank... but I never wanted to be anything else but an engineer." ~Montgomery Scott~
  • badname834854badname834854 Member Posts: 1,186 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    I mean hell, she can take a donatra thalaron blast to the face.

    This I doubt. Perhaps at the far end of the damage cone, but not up close.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    bitemepwe wrote: »
    Beam Arrays have a 270 degree firing arc. They overlap for the Broadside just fine.
    The only limit is the fore mounted Beam arrays can not fire backwards down the ship and the aft can not fire forward if the ship is facing its target head-on.

    Roach,

    To be correct beam arrays have a 250' arc. I wish they would be 270 because an Excel' with DBB and torps wouldn't have a "blind spot" of 10' on each side on a beam boat version.
  • wunjeewunjee Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    This I doubt. Perhaps at the far end of the damage cone, but not up close.

    My Steamrunner ate one at 4 clicks and still had 40% hull left..
  • bareelbareel Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    This I doubt. Perhaps at the far end of the damage cone, but not up close.

    Its all about the resists mate I've eaten plenty of them in escorts without death. That torp spread though just irritates me at times.
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    Roach,

    To be correct beam arrays have a 250' arc. I wish they would be 270 because an Excel' with DBB and torps wouldn't have a "blind spot" of 10' on each side on a beam boat version.

    My mistake, though it doesn't destroy the point I was making - that Beam Arrays overlap just fine as they are set currently.

    I would have no issue with Beam Arrays ( not DBBs or HBs) having thier firing arcs upgraded to a 270 degree setting, DBBs being increased to 180 degrees and Heavy Beams with a 90 degree firing arc (if they arrive)

    Of course I would expect DHC's to remain at 45 Degrees, DC's to be opened to 150 degrees and Single cannons opened to 250 degrees to compensate for the ease by which beams could be used in combat.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    You're right on cruisers needing something, and I can tell you what it is.

    Cruisers need an instruction manual.
    \


    Here,Here,and Here.

    Does no good in they do not use them as the guides as they where intended.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • vitzhvitzh Member Posts: 519
    edited December 2012
    bitemepwe wrote: »
    \


    Here,Here,and Here.

    Does no good in they do not use them as the guides as they where intended.

    I think you place too much faith in Feds being able to read or follow instructions Roach.....
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    vitzh wrote: »

    I think you place too much faith in Feds being able to read or follow instructions Roach.....

    Luckily it doesn't rely on faith as many in the forums are willing to help them when they have questions.

    The sadness is that so many would rather complain than learn to play.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    bitemepwe wrote: »
    My mistake, though it doesn't destroy the point I was making - that Beam Arrays overlap just fine as they are set currently.

    I would have no issue with Beam Arrays ( not DBBs or HBs) having thier firing arcs upgraded to a 270 degree setting, DBBs being increased to 180 degrees and Heavy Beams with a 90 degree firing arc (if they arrive)

    Of course I would expect DHC's to remain at 45 Degrees, DC's to be opened to 150 degrees and Single cannons opened to 250 degrees to compensate for the ease by which beams could be used in combat.


    You are correct that it doesn't destroy your point, I just wanted to correct to maintain accuracy in statement.
    I'm not sure about DC's being expanded to 150', maybe 90'. I'd argue the single cannons arc is just fine at 180'. What DHC/DC need is no vertical 45' restriction their firing arcs, its silly the small vertical arc that they can use a.t.m. .
  • bladeofkahlessbladeofkahless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited December 2012
    This I doubt. Perhaps at the far end of the damage cone, but not up close.

    Yup. Up close.
    As Bareel said, it's all about the resists. And timing.
    Sometimes she fires it off before it should (according to the animation), then yeah... most of the time that one gets me. But if I know I'm going to get nailed by it (evasive is down or whatever), then I throw up every resist and the kitchen sink, close my eyes and hold on to something :P

    It's me, Chrome. [Join Date: May 2009]

    "Oh, I may be captain by rank... but I never wanted to be anything else but an engineer." ~Montgomery Scott~
Sign In or Register to comment.