^I wouldn't count the Breen ship or any of the Klingon Battlecruisers as Cruisers. They are Battlecruisers, simple as that. Well except the Bortas, but we all know its a reskinned Odyssey.
Anyway, cruisers are built to tank. A few like the excelsior can be made in wonderful DPS boats though and still tank. I have no problem tanking in a starcruiser and healing my team and soaking up damage for the escorts, that's my purpose in a starcruiser. If people want a more DPS orientated cruiser...well the Excelsior is only $20. If people don't like their roll, they shouldn't have purchased the ship.
But the worse thing about the situation in my opinion, is the complete lack of skills some people have. Its not that hard to search this site or do a google search for a good build. I've been running alot of elite STFs lately and parsing the log files. The last one I did yesterday had a assault cruiser putting out a grand total of 920 DPS. 920! now I know that log parser could be off by a few hundred. But even 200 means hes still not pulling his weight and is more of a liability then an asset. Usually these morons are in cruisers. Frankly in many of these cases, I think its not the ship that's broken, its the bad player that should be sticking to Deferi daily instead of even PvE.
Also, I have a bug ship and a fleet defiant on the same toon. For the most part, I rate them as equal in performance. I prefer the Defiant though for the looks. Point is, one is a ultra rare lockbox ship and the other is a ship thats a reward for a crapton of resources. They both should be better then the average ship.
Yes they do have a right to be good but balance dictates they must be stoppable, something it seems the vast majority of people CAN'T do
So nerf the Bugship.
I don't have one but I'm sure tired of it being the platform on which Tacs are being measured when other players claim that Tacs, Escorts or DHCs are OP, yet we all don't fly one.
I don't have one but I'm sure tired of it being the platform on which Tacs are being measured when other players claim that Tacs, Escorts or DHCs are OP, yet we all don't fly one.
Why nerf the ship when we can look at the weapons used in the games, heck the issue has even popped up in the PvP forums (See here) and frankly I agree with him, increase the rate of fire of beam arrays, maybe even half the firing cycle as well which will lower effective drain and improve DPS on beam arrays and make DHCs drain power in the same way beams do giving them a downside and improve the FA on DCs to 90 deg and I'd be happy as would a lot of cruiser and escort players and it would increase build variety as DCs would become a viable option again
Why nerf the ship when we can look at the weapons used in the games, heck the issue has even popped up in the PvP forums (See here) and frankly I agree with him, increase the rate of fire of beam arrays, maybe even half the firing cycle as well which will lower effective drain and improve DPS on beam arrays and make DHCs drain power in the same way beams do giving them a downside and improve the FA on DCs to 90 deg and I'd be happy as would a lot of cruiser and escort players and it would increase build variety as DCs would become a viable option again
Beams already have a much higher rate of fire.
So much so that they drain far more than DHCs and hamper thier own energy return rate within the mechanics of weapons drain.
Maybe thats the answer. Have DHCs fire faster so they drain more energy within the weapon drain mechanic and bottom out lower before the instant recharge like beams currently do.
I read that thread and posted in it. My view has not changed.
I'm all for changes to the weapons as long as they are balanced. Many of the ideas for Beam arrays are not if they only boost the damage output but do not have checks in firing arcs restrictions, etc.
Frankly put, Too many Engie/Cruisers builds also want to be the Tac/Escort damage dealer equivalent without playing the classes or the vessels and the restrictions they inherently have by design.
I am not for changes that make class choice useless or just rotate the "top of the food chain" to the next "fan favorite" just to start the griping all over again from a different perspective in a few months.
Beams already have a much higher rate of fire.
So much so that they drain far more than DHCs and hamper thier own energy return rate within the mechanics of weapons drain.
I'm all for changes to the weapons as long as they are balanced. Many of the ideas for Beam arrays are not if they only boost the damage output but do not have checks in firing arcs restrictions, etc.
Just because many suggestions to buff beams are a little much doesn't mean they should all be disregarded simply because they involve the words increase and damage in the same breath though, I personally quite like Dontdrunk's ideas on the subject and to implement them would make a class viable again for most of the game content, I can't fault his reasoning, I ask you to give it a chance, we all know that if it looks even a smidgeon OP Cryptic will not hesitate to nerf it.
Just because many suggestions to buff beams are a little much doesn't mean they should all be disregarded simply because they involve the words increase and damage in the same breath though, I personally quite like Dontdrunk's ideas on the subject and to implement them would make a class viable again for most of the game content, I can't fault his reasoning, I ask you to give it a chance, we all know that if it looks even a smidgeon OP Cryptic will not hesitate to nerf it.
I didn't dismiss DDIS's ideas. I merely expressed my desire to see the changes not be a reflection of any players desire to be something thier vessel or class is not primarily designed for and when the changes happen, what ever they may be, that they have checks and balances that reflect some common sense to how the other weapons function ingame and are similariyl handicapped.
For example, I said a Beam Array doing DHC damage levels with a 250 FA would be unbalanced.
I wish common sense to prevail over Fan perceptions and desires.
For example, I said a Beam Array doing DHC damage levels with a 250 FA would be unbalanced.
And I agree but there is no reason a 6 beam broadside should be made to look incompetent by 4 DHCs what I want is for 6 beams on a cruiser to compete with but not outperform 4 DHCs, something I believe to be fair
And I agree but there is no reason a 6 beam broadside should be made to look incompetent by 4 DHCs what I want is for 6 beams on a cruiser to compete with but not outperform 4 DHCs, something I believe to be fair
What if all cruisers gained an innate hull resistance bonus modifier? It adds extra resistance specifically to cruiser hulls, and allows greater rewards for investing in resistances
On the other side, Escorts lose hull resistances and it is less effective to invest in that.
Bottom line is Escorts are just too good. The insane damage is not offset by its current abilities, and like you said, its truly impossible to tank indefinitely, at which point escorts will be outputting more damage, have a higher speed and higher defense, and also absorb more damage by conveniently distributing damage across all shield quadrants, meaning they'll win, no matter how much defense you have.
Bottom line is Escorts are just too good. The insane damage is not offset by its current abilities, and like you said, its truly impossible to tank indefinitely, at which point escorts will be outputting more damage, have a higher speed and higher defense, and also absorb more damage by conveniently distributing damage across all shield quadrants, meaning they'll win, no matter how much defense you have.
So thier Damage should be nerfed to make Cruiser happy?
Or should it be thier movement and turnrate to make Cruisers happy?
Which ability is it exactly that makes them "too good" compared to others?
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence, I'm thinking of this sort of thing for cruisers and damage, if you build right for it you can get damage that competes with escorts in a similar way to how escorts compete with cruisers as tanks if you get what I'm getting at, it is kinda hard to explain
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence, I'm thinking of this sort of thing for cruisers and damage, if you build right for it you can get damage that competes with escorts in a similar way to how escorts compete with cruisers as tanks if you get what I'm getting at, it is kinda hard to explain
Not really but yes. A cruiser can out-(self)tank an escort by a large amount due to engineering boff ability slots (no other reason) BUT that level of tank is pointless. Especially because if we truly push the game in the trinity direction of tank+healer the escort wins as tank and half the playerbase quits playing that content. At the same time a Sci Vessel can out-tank both of them BUT has much better things to do.
But at the end of the day you only need enough tank to survive the encounter, any extra is inefficient.
The disparity begins with the boff abilities (tac > eng typically) and continues into the weapons (DHC > all) and ends with the final hull touches (+10% defense > +10% shield cap + ??% hull).
Please keep in mind by disparity in boff abilities I mean a CRF is going to increase your dps by so much more than a DEM. Although if you fly the Steamrunner you can use both.
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence, I'm thinking of this sort of thing for cruisers and damage, if you build right for it you can get damage that competes with escorts in a similar way to how escorts compete with cruisers as tanks if you get what I'm getting at, it is kinda hard to explain
We already have that.
It shouldn't be hard to explain at all.
If Escorts are behaving as Cruisers in the "defense department" then what ability or set of abilities is giving them this defense that is beyond thier design? What abilities are making them out-tank a Cruiser?
Thats a great deal of the issue.
Many are making claims of how the Escort is OP at the moment but nobody can put thier finger on the exact issue that makes them so out of balance and given the sheer number of factors that could be a ....factor any fix that just stabs in the dark in not going to be a fix.
Or it could be as simple as the cycling of ApO has removed the one big weakness of the Escorts.
...and to implement them would make a class viable again for most of the game content...
So you're saying that the Engineer you have spent weeks drooling over after you got your Fleet Excel is not viable for most of the game content? I can remember a number of KASE that you specifically asked to be left alone on one side and you even bragged to me once that you cleared it faster than a full team.
And you don't consider this viable? I can tell you for a fact that Engis are plenty viable for all game content. They can put out some SERIOUS numbers on the ground (OH NO, GROUND!!! HERESY!!!! BLASPHEMY!!! NUUUUUUUUUU...), and in space, a competent Engineer in a good ship (not just cruisers, but escorts, sci ships, carriers) can STILL do some major damage. Not as high as a tac can, and not NEARLY at the level of a tacscort (something about APA3 + FOMM + TI + GDF + APO3 + CRFX + TTX = PAIN), but they are plenty viable.
I too read the thread, found it interesting, found Roach's posts enlightening and a few amusing, but for the most part, I still say that you are trying to use the Cruiser in a role it's not designed to fill. It's like asking a cop to do a paramedics job. And vice versa. The cop will never get as good at saving lives as a paramedic, and the paramedic will never be as good at catching criminals as a cop.
Look at your cruiser. Just take a quick look at your purty (not to me) little Excelsior. Now what do we see? Well we see that for some f'd up reason your tac consoles match your engi consoles in number (only reason that you can draw aggro off my oddy btw), but that's an unusual case for most cruisers. Going with what most cruisers look like, you have more Engineering consoles than Tactical consoles. Now let's look at your BOff layout. You have a plethora of engineering BOff slots, coming out to eight in total (not entirely sure, but somewhere around there). And only three (yes, THREE) Tactical BOff slots. Hm... why do I get the feeling that damage dealing is NOT the idea behind this setup?
Now let's look at the vaunted Jem'hadar Attack Ship (aka the "bug"). Starting with the consoles, I see... five tactical consoles. Five. And I only see four engineering consoles. Then we look at BOff layout. I see SEVEN tactical slots. And only ONE engineering slot. Even if you took both Lt Universals and made them Engineering, you would still only have 5. So all in all, I get this odd feeling that damage dealing IS the idea behind this setup.
Now let's be fair and look at a more common escort, the Advanced Escort, a favorite of a few of my friends (even though I prefer the FPE to their MVAM). Starting with consoles... I see FOUR tactical consoles, and only TWO engineering. Hm... Then we look at BOff layout. I see SEVEN tactical BOff slots and only TWO engineering ones. Again, looks like it was made to deal damage. And if we take the Fleet version to properly compare it to your fleet excel, we see an even greater disparity with it's FIVE tactical consoles to it's still TWO engineering consoles, with the ratio on the BOffs unchanged.
Even if we took the tankier escorts (on paper and in game), NONE of them have the ability to stay alive nearly as well as your excelsior, and ALL of them can deal far more damage then you possibly ever could. Even if you gave an escort the 6/2 setup, they would still deal damage. It's their JOB. With that many tactical BOff slots and that many tactical consoles, of course they will deal more damage than a ship with fewer in either category.
So yes, cruisers are underpowered, and will not perform as well, in a function they were never really designed to perform in.
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.
And I agree but there is no reason a 6 beam broadside should be made to look incompetent by 4 DHCs what I want is for 6 beams on a cruiser to compete with but not outperform 4 DHCs, something I believe to be fair
It only appears incompetent to players to do not understand the differences in ship designs and the roles those ships play respectively. This is on the same level as demanding a Protection Warrior be capable of the same DPS output as an Arcane Mage while still performing the role of a meatshield. If you are unhappy with your choice then perhaps you shouldn't captain a Cruiser or play an Engineer.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
Since the Battlecruisers are different. I use a Sovereign Class that is the "free" one. As I hadn't bought a newer better ship yet. Even with it, I don't have problems. I came out a lot of nasty combat spots and managed to survive. Granted it don't have the punch forward like my KDF. However its effective going broadside. As it packs a wallop. Tear up the shields, do a quick turn to get torpedoes in target and let them fly.
However like the others say, the cruiser is made to tank and take it. So compared to a DPS ship, it will do less damage. Which is why I survived some really impressive battles on solo.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
It only appears incompetent to players to do not understand the differences in ship designs and the roles those ships play respectively. This is on the same level as demanding a Protection Warrior be capable of the same DPS output as an Arcane Mage while still performing the role of a meatshield. If you are unhappy with your choice then perhaps you shouldn't captain a Cruiser or play an Engineer.
And here the ugly head of this whole arguments fallacy rears it head again:
You base your arguement on the premise that the "trinity" approach to game design is actually a good one for a game about star trek. A franchise where there is no such thing as a healer: every ship is its own healer, damage dealer and crowd control.
That aside:
cryptic itself contradicts your argument by constantly releasing new cruisers and throwing the term "tactical" and "heavily armed" and "battleship" into the mix.
And now the "boom your argument is dead" point:
klingon cruisers can heal just as well, and still do loads of supplemental damage - with the fleet vorcha and ktinga actually turned into tankier escorts.
But still: al klinker cruisrs hav high mobility and can fit the games best daamge dealer: dhc.
And here comes the expectd counter argument:
"they are klingons bla bla"
I say this is BS. This artificial difference between the two races is BS. Fed cruisers should be almost as mobile as klingon cruisers, Beam arrays should become a fearsome weapon again.
All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.
And here the ugly head of this whole arguments fallacy rears it head again:
You base your arguement on the premise that the "trinity" approach to game design is actually a good one for a game about star trek. A franchise where there is no such thing as a healer: every ship is its own healer, damage dealer and crowd control.
That aside:
cryptic itself contradicts your argument by constantly releasing new cruisers and throwing the term "tactical" and "heavily armed" and "battleship" into the mix.
And now the "boom your argument is dead" point:
klingon cruisers can heal just as well, and still do loads of supplemental damage - with the fleet vorcha and ktinga actually turned into tankier escorts.
But still: al klinker cruisrs hav high mobility and can fit the games best daamge dealer: dhc.
And here comes the expectd counter argument:
"they are klingons bla bla"
I say this is BS. This artificial difference between the two races is BS. Fed cruisers should be almost as mobile as klingon cruisers, Beam arrays should become a fearsome weapon again.
All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.
This trinity shiite aint working right.
Then we all fly a single generic class ship. Every ship has the same loadout capabilities, the same hull, and the same shield modifier. Problem solved. You people complain when X doesn't get the same abilities or stats that Y does. Then you complain that X and Y have the same stats and we're paying for Cryptic to be lazy with development and they're just stealing our money. The only dead argument here is the feeble attempt you made at a relevant post.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
And here the ugly head of this whole arguments fallacy rears it head again:
You base your arguement on the premise that the "trinity" approach to game design is actually a good one for a game about star trek. A franchise where there is no such thing as a healer: every ship is its own healer, damage dealer and crowd control.
That aside:
cryptic itself contradicts your argument by constantly releasing new cruisers and throwing the term "tactical" and "heavily armed" and "battleship" into the mix.
And now the "boom your argument is dead" point:
klingon cruisers can heal just as well, and still do loads of supplemental damage - with the fleet vorcha and ktinga actually turned into tankier escorts.
But still: al klinker cruisrs hav high mobility and can fit the games best daamge dealer: dhc.
And here comes the expectd counter argument:
"they are klingons bla bla"
I say this is BS. This artificial difference between the two races is BS. Fed cruisers should be almost as mobile as klingon cruisers, Beam arrays should become a fearsome weapon again.
All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.
This trinity shiite aint working right.
But you will notice that KDF battlecruisers are squishier with weaker shields. You will also notice they heavily lack in utility, something that fed cruisers excel at. KDF battlecruisers cannot keep other ships alive as well as fed cruisers can. So they make up for it by being far more selfish ships. Ships that focus more on keeping themselves alive.
As for your "artificial differences between the two races", it's not artificial. It's canon. Federation ships usually did not use anything even resembling cannons. The only ship that used cannons in canon was the Defiant and her class. KDF ships on the other hand were seen using cannons for almost the entirety of canon.
All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.
Um... no. If you do that then there will be no reason to fly certain ship classes, and no reason to fly certain ships. The ships are already incredibly close in survivability and damage dealing. Even the extremes are only 5-10% ahead of the other classes. If anything, the exact opposite needs to be done. Ships should be drawn even further apart in damage dealing and survivability, so that there's a reason to fly certain ships over others.
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.
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence,....
No, they don't come even close. My Engi cruiser is nowhere as geared as my tacscort and it can orbit a target dealing 6 beam broadsides forever without any real worry. My tacscort has a limited shelf life, once it gets past a certain point it simply has to run and hope for the best.
Unlike your average player I actually have both, an engi cruiser and a tacscort and every time I hear a supposedly knowledgeable player spout nonsense like that I get worried more impressionable and newer players will believe it and fall into the trap of thinking they perform poorly because their ships are simply weak as opposed to them needing to get better. How often have we heard cruiser pilots say how they can't be bothered to grab agro because escorts are just better tanks? Or how they can't comprehend why they would need to worry about things like power levels since they are in an UP ship class?
Unlike your average player I actually have both, an engi cruiser and a tacscort and every time I hear a supposedly knowledgeable player spout nonsense like that I get worried more impressionable and newer players will believe it and fall into the trap of thinking they perform poorly because their ships are simply weak as opposed to them needing to get better.
I also run all three careers in their respective ship classes and I can produce absolutely evil cruisers and science ships but all my escorts fail dismally, when next I have the motivation to (again) fail dismally at building an escort I may try again but for now I support what DDIS is saying about weapons and how they should be modified. I can build an eng cruiser that can do BoPs in CSE, do transformers solo on one side of KASE (Provided it has a probesman), tank the ISE tac cube with minimal cross healing and still put out a good 7k per volley and sit next to Queenie and do the same with little to no cross-heals.
But that's what I can do, not what the average player does, the average player is putting out 200-500 per hit across 6-8 beam arrays, I don't ask for these buffs primarily for me, I know they will help me secure certain damage targets but that isn't why I ask for them, I ask for them for your poor casual over by a nanite probe in CSE putting out so little damage his team has to carry him because he either doesn't know how to better his build (see me doing 3k per volley pre S-6) or because he has no knowledge of what the ship can do if he were to improve it. These are the people we need to think about when doing this and if we are really that concerned about it becoming OP then you put a damage cap on it job done.
........ when next I have the motivation to (again) fail dismally at building an escort I may try again.......
Why do your escorts fail? The way you go on about their damage potential and defense they are pretty easy to make. Is it because you're too used to being unkillable in a cruiser? I know getting used to that was a bit of a shock in my engi cruiser. I would even say my engi cruiser only got really good once I got over trying to stack more defenses than were necessary.
As for doing it for the sake of the "average" player...I'm sorry but that is about the WORST thing you could do if you really wanted to help them. Cruisers are already incredibly forgiving, and in fact some of their over-tankiness is probably due to them being the "newby" and "fan" ship; in other words, they are aimed at the more casual player that just wants to get in and have a good time. They can perform great if you bother to learn to fly them but will also get a non-pro from point A to B while being a Kirk and feeling like a badass. Sadly, when its time to learn how to REALLY fly too many prefer to complain and try to change the game's mechanics to suit their wants.
Bah, we can go back and forth on the 'viability' of a trinity balance approach and if it is being properly used in this game all day. It is a moot point for me.
Bottom line is as follows:
IF I want omega marks and/or dil I can run space elites in my escorts while half asleep and drunk and carry 4 rainbow boats to victory with optional barring intentional sabotage.
IF I want romulan marks I can pound out the space daily encounters in under two minutes each with my escort.
IF I want fleet marks I can pound out a Battleship Royal in about ten minutes. With my escort.
IF I want to fly HSE or No Win I realize its time to stop drinking as the reward is not worth it.
IF I want to PvP I would log in to a much different game.
IF I don't care how long or how efficiently I partake in any of those activities I'll fly a cruiser/sci vessel.
Oh and just for clarity by escort I mean any ship that has a large number of tac slots and packs DHCs. And I don't just fly one captain type I have two of each (one per faction) and in the final PvE analysis their abilities have such a short 'active uptime' they really make little difference in PvE.
And finally IF I wanted to fly a true and proper 'PvE tank' it would be a freaking science vessel that has the following advantages over cruisers.
1- More shield capacity
2- More shield regeneration
3- More use for all that extra AUX power laying around
4- More Sci console slots for +emitters
I know I know my hull won't get as many heals. It won't need them beyond my 50% uptime hazard emitter 1 at full AUX. Oh and look I can energy drain the enemy so they have no shields the entire time too. Lastly there are several Sci Vessels that are brimming with engineering boff abilities to choose from for said purpose. And true the cruiser does have a minor shield modifier advantage over an escort but it is no where near as drastic a difference.
So hey, have fun. Fly your cruiser and tank in an STF for me all you want, or take twice as long to get your dilithium it makes no real difference to me. Just don't be surprised when all the players you all keep telling to 'learn to play' or 'learn your role' get fed up with your elitist 'I know best' attitude and quit.
If someone wants to 'Kirk' it up in PvE with a cruiser there is nothing wrong with that, nor is it in any way detrimental to the game. I don't here complaining about KDFs 'Kirking' with their fleet Vor'Cha so why shouldn't a Fed be allowed to do the same in his Excel?
But you will notice that KDF battlecruisers are squishier with weaker shields. You will also notice they heavily lack in utility, something that fed cruisers excel at. KDF battlecruisers cannot keep other ships alive as well as fed cruisers can. So they make up for it by being far more selfish ships. Ships that focus more on keeping themselves alive.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. KDF's battlecruisers are equal-or-better in nearly ever way to the Federation's whales, and the advantages the Federation have (typically a small bonus to hull strength and an extra device) don't matter.
If you do that then there will be no reason to fly certain ship classes, and no reason to fly certain ships.
Making ships equal in performance does not mean making them perform the same way. Different ship and captain combinations should be able to complete the same objectives with the same success and speed if played well using their individual strengths. The reason to use an escort is because you like going in with all guns blazing, and the reason to use a science ship is because you like warping time and space to your benefit. You don't take an escort because it kills better, you take it because you like high speed gun runs and massive torpedo salvos more than you like seeing ships crushed by subspace tears or melted by unnameable radiation from Dimension X.
Making ships equal in performance does not mean making them perform the same way. Different ship and captain combinations should be able to complete the same objectives with the same success and speed if played well using their individual strengths. The reason to use an escort is because you like going in with all guns blazing, and the reason to use a science ship is because you like warping time and space to your benefit. You don't take an escort because it kills better, you take it because you like high speed gun runs and massive torpedo salvos more than you like seeing ships crushed by subspace tears or melted by unnameable radiation from Dimension X.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. KDF's battlecruisers are equal-or-better in nearly ever way to the Federation's whales, and the advantages the Federation have (typically a small bonus to hull strength and an extra device) don't matter.
Right so the extra science utility common on fed ships and that extra area for a battery don't matter. And the extra HE or TSS don't matter, as well as the stronger shields that can survive and extra hit or the stronger hull that can survive one more shot don't matter.
I like what you have to say most of the time momaw, but if you insist upon posting up things that don't make sense I will be forced to reconsider that view.
Making ships equal in performance does not mean making them perform the same way. Different ship and captain combinations should be able to complete the same objectives with the same success and speed if played well using their individual strengths. The reason to use an escort is because you like going in with all guns blazing, and the reason to use a science ship is because you like warping time and space to your benefit. You don't take an escort because it kills better, you take it because you like high speed gun runs and massive torpedo salvos more than you like seeing ships crushed by subspace tears or melted by unnameable radiation from Dimension X.
So... you basically just said what I said. If you re-read my post, you will see that I am actually a fan of pushing ships further towards... how did you put it? "their individual strengths". So make cruisers tankier with lower damage, make escorts faster, more damage, but far less survivability/durability, and make science ships depend even more in their abilities, like the three should have been in the first place.
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.
So... you basically just said what I said. If you re-read my post, you will see that I am actually a fan of pushing ships further towards... how did you put it? "their individual strengths". So make cruisers tankier with lower damage, make escorts faster, more damage, but far less survivability/durability, and make science ships depend even more in their abilities, like the three should have been in the first place.
Star Trek Online, the Holy Trinity WoW clone. I can't wait to play it, wonder if it will bomb like that other WoW clone space game did....
I am sick of the holy trinity that lacks any creative inspiration and adds nothing to gameplay. Nor do I see how or where it has any place in Star Trek. Last time I watched a battle in a DS9 episode I didn't see a Cruiser healing the defiant while it went in guns blazing. I seem to recall, although my memory may be a bit foggy, the cruisers going in guns blazing right behind her tearing up enemy ships. And exploding because they lacked the budget to outfit them with shields but oh well in times of war you field what you can.
Star Trek Online, the Holy Trinity WoW clone. I can't wait to play it, wonder if it will bomb like that other WoW clone space game did....
I am sick of the holy trinity that lacks any creative inspiration and adds nothing to gameplay. Nor do I see how or where it has any place in Star Trek. Last time I watched a battle in a DS9 episode I didn't see a Cruiser healing the defiant while it went in guns blazing. I seem to recall, although my memory may be a bit foggy, the cruisers going in guns blazing right behind her tearing up enemy ships. And exploding because they lacked the budget to outfit them with shields but oh well in times of war you field what you can.
That's the unfortunate truth. Games will always have some sort of whacked out trinity like this. And in their attempt to follow the typical MMO (which is what most players expect from this game) they ended up gimping an otherwise magnificent class.
I am not saying I support what they've done to cruisers. Nor can I condemn it.
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.
That's the unfortunate truth. Games will always have some sort of whacked out trinity like this. And in their attempt to follow the typical MMO (which is what most players expect from this game) they ended up gimping an otherwise magnificent class.
I am not saying I support what they've done to cruisers. Nor can I condemn it.
Then what exactly are you saying? That you like the idea of the holy trinity being emphasized more in the game? That it shouldn't be? Or that you don't care either way?
I have a very simple stance. Different but Equal. No one ship type should be extremely better at any role than another. If the goal is to kill a target six beams should be as effective as three DHCs and 3 turrets. Granted the cannons can be more effective up close and the beams more effective further away provided that enough content supports the variety of engagement ranges. That is good design.
I also fail to see how the design of the game by intent makes players think that is the way it is supposed to be. Instead it is the fault of min/maxing and poor design that leads us down that path. Their are offensive, defensive, self only buff, ally buff, CC, and cleanse abilities for all three boff types in different ways. All 3 hull types have their own offensive nitch (DHC/8 weapons/Sensor Analysis) and defensive nitch (bonus defense/+hull/+shield mod). It just so happens that some scale and work better than others. DHCs are designed around a limited arc and time on target, that is ignored in PvE as an example.
Right so the extra science utility common on fed ships and that extra area for a battery don't matter. And the extra HE or TSS don't matter, as well as the stronger shields that can survive and extra hit or the stronger hull that can survive one more shot don't matter.
Stronger shields? KDF cruisers have the same shields as Federation cruisers, at 1.0 or 1.1 for fleet versions. Some of them have a slightly weaker hull, but since durability is about diminishing and healing damage rather than absorbing it.... no this doesn't matter. If your hull is 1/20th stronger, then that means you're going to survive 1 in 20 more shots AFTER shield resistance, shield balancing, shield heals, and hull heals have all failed.
KDF battlecruisers have zero problems staying alive. Any hypothetical advantage the Feds have in absorbing damage is more than countered by the fact that battlecruisers kill things faster and are significantly more agile, thus ending or escaping fights more easily.
I like what you have to say most of the time momaw, but if you insist upon posting up things that don't make sense I will be forced to reconsider that view.
Personally I would hope that everything I write is evaluated based on its individual merits, rather than being colored by judgements about the worth or accuracy of my entire being...
So... you basically just said what I said. If you re-read my post, you will see that I am actually a fan of pushing ships further towards... how did you put it? "their individual strengths". So make cruisers tankier with lower damage, make escorts faster, more damage, but far less survivability/durability, and make science ships depend even more in their abilities
No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. What ^that would do is force class-based gameplay. If cruisers can't do any worthwhile damage, and if escorts die in a stiff breeze, then you just killed the entire concept of solo play and random teams because your game will require the "correct" mix of ship types to get anywhere.
Versus my viewpoint, which is that a cruiser should be able to kill enemies just as effectively as an escort, but using a somewhat different style of play focused around sustained brawling and power management instead of the escort's slashing attacks and buff stacking.
Comments
Anyway, cruisers are built to tank. A few like the excelsior can be made in wonderful DPS boats though and still tank. I have no problem tanking in a starcruiser and healing my team and soaking up damage for the escorts, that's my purpose in a starcruiser. If people want a more DPS orientated cruiser...well the Excelsior is only $20. If people don't like their roll, they shouldn't have purchased the ship.
But the worse thing about the situation in my opinion, is the complete lack of skills some people have. Its not that hard to search this site or do a google search for a good build. I've been running alot of elite STFs lately and parsing the log files. The last one I did yesterday had a assault cruiser putting out a grand total of 920 DPS. 920! now I know that log parser could be off by a few hundred. But even 200 means hes still not pulling his weight and is more of a liability then an asset. Usually these morons are in cruisers. Frankly in many of these cases, I think its not the ship that's broken, its the bad player that should be sticking to Deferi daily instead of even PvE.
Also, I have a bug ship and a fleet defiant on the same toon. For the most part, I rate them as equal in performance. I prefer the Defiant though for the looks. Point is, one is a ultra rare lockbox ship and the other is a ship thats a reward for a crapton of resources. They both should be better then the average ship.
So nerf the Bugship.
I don't have one but I'm sure tired of it being the platform on which Tacs are being measured when other players claim that Tacs, Escorts or DHCs are OP, yet we all don't fly one.
R.I.P
Why nerf the ship when we can look at the weapons used in the games, heck the issue has even popped up in the PvP forums (See here) and frankly I agree with him, increase the rate of fire of beam arrays, maybe even half the firing cycle as well which will lower effective drain and improve DPS on beam arrays and make DHCs drain power in the same way beams do giving them a downside and improve the FA on DCs to 90 deg and I'd be happy as would a lot of cruiser and escort players and it would increase build variety as DCs would become a viable option again
Beams already have a much higher rate of fire.
So much so that they drain far more than DHCs and hamper thier own energy return rate within the mechanics of weapons drain.
Maybe thats the answer. Have DHCs fire faster so they drain more energy within the weapon drain mechanic and bottom out lower before the instant recharge like beams currently do.
I read that thread and posted in it. My view has not changed.
I'm all for changes to the weapons as long as they are balanced. Many of the ideas for Beam arrays are not if they only boost the damage output but do not have checks in firing arcs restrictions, etc.
Frankly put, Too many Engie/Cruisers builds also want to be the Tac/Escort damage dealer equivalent without playing the classes or the vessels and the restrictions they inherently have by design.
I am not for changes that make class choice useless or just rotate the "top of the food chain" to the next "fan favorite" just to start the griping all over again from a different perspective in a few months.
R.I.P
Hence I suggested halving the firing cycle
Just because many suggestions to buff beams are a little much doesn't mean they should all be disregarded simply because they involve the words increase and damage in the same breath though, I personally quite like Dontdrunk's ideas on the subject and to implement them would make a class viable again for most of the game content, I can't fault his reasoning, I ask you to give it a chance, we all know that if it looks even a smidgeon OP Cryptic will not hesitate to nerf it.
I didn't dismiss DDIS's ideas. I merely expressed my desire to see the changes not be a reflection of any players desire to be something thier vessel or class is not primarily designed for and when the changes happen, what ever they may be, that they have checks and balances that reflect some common sense to how the other weapons function ingame and are similariyl handicapped.
For example, I said a Beam Array doing DHC damage levels with a 250 FA would be unbalanced.
I wish common sense to prevail over Fan perceptions and desires.
R.I.P
And I agree but there is no reason a 6 beam broadside should be made to look incompetent by 4 DHCs what I want is for 6 beams on a cruiser to compete with but not outperform 4 DHCs, something I believe to be fair
By what parameters do you define "compete"?
R.I.P
On the other side, Escorts lose hull resistances and it is less effective to invest in that.
Bottom line is Escorts are just too good. The insane damage is not offset by its current abilities, and like you said, its truly impossible to tank indefinitely, at which point escorts will be outputting more damage, have a higher speed and higher defense, and also absorb more damage by conveniently distributing damage across all shield quadrants, meaning they'll win, no matter how much defense you have.
So thier Damage should be nerfed to make Cruiser happy?
Or should it be thier movement and turnrate to make Cruisers happy?
Which ability is it exactly that makes them "too good" compared to others?
R.I.P
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence, I'm thinking of this sort of thing for cruisers and damage, if you build right for it you can get damage that competes with escorts in a similar way to how escorts compete with cruisers as tanks if you get what I'm getting at, it is kinda hard to explain
Not really but yes. A cruiser can out-(self)tank an escort by a large amount due to engineering boff ability slots (no other reason) BUT that level of tank is pointless. Especially because if we truly push the game in the trinity direction of tank+healer the escort wins as tank and half the playerbase quits playing that content. At the same time a Sci Vessel can out-tank both of them BUT has much better things to do.
But at the end of the day you only need enough tank to survive the encounter, any extra is inefficient.
The disparity begins with the boff abilities (tac > eng typically) and continues into the weapons (DHC > all) and ends with the final hull touches (+10% defense > +10% shield cap + ??% hull).
Please keep in mind by disparity in boff abilities I mean a CRF is going to increase your dps by so much more than a DEM. Although if you fly the Steamrunner you can use both.
We already have that.
It shouldn't be hard to explain at all.
If Escorts are behaving as Cruisers in the "defense department" then what ability or set of abilities is giving them this defense that is beyond thier design? What abilities are making them out-tank a Cruiser?
Thats a great deal of the issue.
Many are making claims of how the Escort is OP at the moment but nobody can put thier finger on the exact issue that makes them so out of balance and given the sheer number of factors that could be a ....factor any fix that just stabs in the dark in not going to be a fix.
Or it could be as simple as the cycling of ApO has removed the one big weakness of the Escorts.
R.I.P
So you're saying that the Engineer you have spent weeks drooling over after you got your Fleet Excel is not viable for most of the game content? I can remember a number of KASE that you specifically asked to be left alone on one side and you even bragged to me once that you cleared it faster than a full team.
And you don't consider this viable? I can tell you for a fact that Engis are plenty viable for all game content. They can put out some SERIOUS numbers on the ground (OH NO, GROUND!!! HERESY!!!! BLASPHEMY!!! NUUUUUUUUUU...), and in space, a competent Engineer in a good ship (not just cruisers, but escorts, sci ships, carriers) can STILL do some major damage. Not as high as a tac can, and not NEARLY at the level of a tacscort (something about APA3 + FOMM + TI + GDF + APO3 + CRFX + TTX = PAIN), but they are plenty viable.
I too read the thread, found it interesting, found Roach's posts enlightening and a few amusing, but for the most part, I still say that you are trying to use the Cruiser in a role it's not designed to fill. It's like asking a cop to do a paramedics job. And vice versa. The cop will never get as good at saving lives as a paramedic, and the paramedic will never be as good at catching criminals as a cop.
Look at your cruiser. Just take a quick look at your purty (not to me) little Excelsior. Now what do we see? Well we see that for some f'd up reason your tac consoles match your engi consoles in number (only reason that you can draw aggro off my oddy btw), but that's an unusual case for most cruisers. Going with what most cruisers look like, you have more Engineering consoles than Tactical consoles. Now let's look at your BOff layout. You have a plethora of engineering BOff slots, coming out to eight in total (not entirely sure, but somewhere around there). And only three (yes, THREE) Tactical BOff slots. Hm... why do I get the feeling that damage dealing is NOT the idea behind this setup?
Now let's look at the vaunted Jem'hadar Attack Ship (aka the "bug"). Starting with the consoles, I see... five tactical consoles. Five. And I only see four engineering consoles. Then we look at BOff layout. I see SEVEN tactical slots. And only ONE engineering slot. Even if you took both Lt Universals and made them Engineering, you would still only have 5. So all in all, I get this odd feeling that damage dealing IS the idea behind this setup.
Now let's be fair and look at a more common escort, the Advanced Escort, a favorite of a few of my friends (even though I prefer the FPE to their MVAM). Starting with consoles... I see FOUR tactical consoles, and only TWO engineering. Hm... Then we look at BOff layout. I see SEVEN tactical BOff slots and only TWO engineering ones. Again, looks like it was made to deal damage. And if we take the Fleet version to properly compare it to your fleet excel, we see an even greater disparity with it's FIVE tactical consoles to it's still TWO engineering consoles, with the ratio on the BOffs unchanged.
Even if we took the tankier escorts (on paper and in game), NONE of them have the ability to stay alive nearly as well as your excelsior, and ALL of them can deal far more damage then you possibly ever could. Even if you gave an escort the 6/2 setup, they would still deal damage. It's their JOB. With that many tactical BOff slots and that many tactical consoles, of course they will deal more damage than a ship with fewer in either category.
So yes, cruisers are underpowered, and will not perform as well, in a function they were never really designed to perform in.
It only appears incompetent to players to do not understand the differences in ship designs and the roles those ships play respectively. This is on the same level as demanding a Protection Warrior be capable of the same DPS output as an Arcane Mage while still performing the role of a meatshield. If you are unhappy with your choice then perhaps you shouldn't captain a Cruiser or play an Engineer.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
However like the others say, the cruiser is made to tank and take it. So compared to a DPS ship, it will do less damage. Which is why I survived some really impressive battles on solo.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
And here the ugly head of this whole arguments fallacy rears it head again:
You base your arguement on the premise that the "trinity" approach to game design is actually a good one for a game about star trek. A franchise where there is no such thing as a healer: every ship is its own healer, damage dealer and crowd control.
That aside:
cryptic itself contradicts your argument by constantly releasing new cruisers and throwing the term "tactical" and "heavily armed" and "battleship" into the mix.
And now the "boom your argument is dead" point:
klingon cruisers can heal just as well, and still do loads of supplemental damage - with the fleet vorcha and ktinga actually turned into tankier escorts.
But still: al klinker cruisrs hav high mobility and can fit the games best daamge dealer: dhc.
And here comes the expectd counter argument:
"they are klingons bla bla"
I say this is BS. This artificial difference between the two races is BS. Fed cruisers should be almost as mobile as klingon cruisers, Beam arrays should become a fearsome weapon again.
All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.
This trinity shiite aint working right.
Then we all fly a single generic class ship. Every ship has the same loadout capabilities, the same hull, and the same shield modifier. Problem solved. You people complain when X doesn't get the same abilities or stats that Y does. Then you complain that X and Y have the same stats and we're paying for Cryptic to be lazy with development and they're just stealing our money. The only dead argument here is the feeble attempt you made at a relevant post.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
But you will notice that KDF battlecruisers are squishier with weaker shields. You will also notice they heavily lack in utility, something that fed cruisers excel at. KDF battlecruisers cannot keep other ships alive as well as fed cruisers can. So they make up for it by being far more selfish ships. Ships that focus more on keeping themselves alive.
As for your "artificial differences between the two races", it's not artificial. It's canon. Federation ships usually did not use anything even resembling cannons. The only ship that used cannons in canon was the Defiant and her class. KDF ships on the other hand were seen using cannons for almost the entirety of canon.
And as for this:
Um... no. If you do that then there will be no reason to fly certain ship classes, and no reason to fly certain ships. The ships are already incredibly close in survivability and damage dealing. Even the extremes are only 5-10% ahead of the other classes. If anything, the exact opposite needs to be done. Ships should be drawn even further apart in damage dealing and survivability, so that there's a reason to fly certain ships over others.
No, they don't come even close. My Engi cruiser is nowhere as geared as my tacscort and it can orbit a target dealing 6 beam broadsides forever without any real worry. My tacscort has a limited shelf life, once it gets past a certain point it simply has to run and hope for the best.
Unlike your average player I actually have both, an engi cruiser and a tacscort and every time I hear a supposedly knowledgeable player spout nonsense like that I get worried more impressionable and newer players will believe it and fall into the trap of thinking they perform poorly because their ships are simply weak as opposed to them needing to get better. How often have we heard cruiser pilots say how they can't be bothered to grab agro because escorts are just better tanks? Or how they can't comprehend why they would need to worry about things like power levels since they are in an UP ship class?
I also run all three careers in their respective ship classes and I can produce absolutely evil cruisers and science ships but all my escorts fail dismally, when next I have the motivation to (again) fail dismally at building an escort I may try again but for now I support what DDIS is saying about weapons and how they should be modified. I can build an eng cruiser that can do BoPs in CSE, do transformers solo on one side of KASE (Provided it has a probesman), tank the ISE tac cube with minimal cross healing and still put out a good 7k per volley and sit next to Queenie and do the same with little to no cross-heals.
But that's what I can do, not what the average player does, the average player is putting out 200-500 per hit across 6-8 beam arrays, I don't ask for these buffs primarily for me, I know they will help me secure certain damage targets but that isn't why I ask for them, I ask for them for your poor casual over by a nanite probe in CSE putting out so little damage his team has to carry him because he either doesn't know how to better his build (see me doing 3k per volley pre S-6) or because he has no knowledge of what the ship can do if he were to improve it. These are the people we need to think about when doing this and if we are really that concerned about it becoming OP then you put a damage cap on it job done.
Why do your escorts fail? The way you go on about their damage potential and defense they are pretty easy to make. Is it because you're too used to being unkillable in a cruiser? I know getting used to that was a bit of a shock in my engi cruiser. I would even say my engi cruiser only got really good once I got over trying to stack more defenses than were necessary.
As for doing it for the sake of the "average" player...I'm sorry but that is about the WORST thing you could do if you really wanted to help them. Cruisers are already incredibly forgiving, and in fact some of their over-tankiness is probably due to them being the "newby" and "fan" ship; in other words, they are aimed at the more casual player that just wants to get in and have a good time. They can perform great if you bother to learn to fly them but will also get a non-pro from point A to B while being a Kirk and feeling like a badass. Sadly, when its time to learn how to REALLY fly too many prefer to complain and try to change the game's mechanics to suit their wants.
Bottom line is as follows:
IF I want omega marks and/or dil I can run space elites in my escorts while half asleep and drunk and carry 4 rainbow boats to victory with optional barring intentional sabotage.
IF I want romulan marks I can pound out the space daily encounters in under two minutes each with my escort.
IF I want fleet marks I can pound out a Battleship Royal in about ten minutes. With my escort.
IF I want to fly HSE or No Win I realize its time to stop drinking as the reward is not worth it.
IF I want to PvP I would log in to a much different game.
IF I don't care how long or how efficiently I partake in any of those activities I'll fly a cruiser/sci vessel.
Oh and just for clarity by escort I mean any ship that has a large number of tac slots and packs DHCs. And I don't just fly one captain type I have two of each (one per faction) and in the final PvE analysis their abilities have such a short 'active uptime' they really make little difference in PvE.
And finally IF I wanted to fly a true and proper 'PvE tank' it would be a freaking science vessel that has the following advantages over cruisers.
1- More shield capacity
2- More shield regeneration
3- More use for all that extra AUX power laying around
4- More Sci console slots for +emitters
I know I know my hull won't get as many heals. It won't need them beyond my 50% uptime hazard emitter 1 at full AUX. Oh and look I can energy drain the enemy so they have no shields the entire time too. Lastly there are several Sci Vessels that are brimming with engineering boff abilities to choose from for said purpose. And true the cruiser does have a minor shield modifier advantage over an escort but it is no where near as drastic a difference.
So hey, have fun. Fly your cruiser and tank in an STF for me all you want, or take twice as long to get your dilithium it makes no real difference to me. Just don't be surprised when all the players you all keep telling to 'learn to play' or 'learn your role' get fed up with your elitist 'I know best' attitude and quit.
If someone wants to 'Kirk' it up in PvE with a cruiser there is nothing wrong with that, nor is it in any way detrimental to the game. I don't here complaining about KDFs 'Kirking' with their fleet Vor'Cha so why shouldn't a Fed be allowed to do the same in his Excel?
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. KDF's battlecruisers are equal-or-better in nearly ever way to the Federation's whales, and the advantages the Federation have (typically a small bonus to hull strength and an extra device) don't matter.
Making ships equal in performance does not mean making them perform the same way. Different ship and captain combinations should be able to complete the same objectives with the same success and speed if played well using their individual strengths. The reason to use an escort is because you like going in with all guns blazing, and the reason to use a science ship is because you like warping time and space to your benefit. You don't take an escort because it kills better, you take it because you like high speed gun runs and massive torpedo salvos more than you like seeing ships crushed by subspace tears or melted by unnameable radiation from Dimension X.
+1
/10 char
Right so the extra science utility common on fed ships and that extra area for a battery don't matter. And the extra HE or TSS don't matter, as well as the stronger shields that can survive and extra hit or the stronger hull that can survive one more shot don't matter.
I like what you have to say most of the time momaw, but if you insist upon posting up things that don't make sense I will be forced to reconsider that view.
So... you basically just said what I said. If you re-read my post, you will see that I am actually a fan of pushing ships further towards... how did you put it? "their individual strengths". So make cruisers tankier with lower damage, make escorts faster, more damage, but far less survivability/durability, and make science ships depend even more in their abilities, like the three should have been in the first place.
Star Trek Online, the Holy Trinity WoW clone. I can't wait to play it, wonder if it will bomb like that other WoW clone space game did....
I am sick of the holy trinity that lacks any creative inspiration and adds nothing to gameplay. Nor do I see how or where it has any place in Star Trek. Last time I watched a battle in a DS9 episode I didn't see a Cruiser healing the defiant while it went in guns blazing. I seem to recall, although my memory may be a bit foggy, the cruisers going in guns blazing right behind her tearing up enemy ships. And exploding because they lacked the budget to outfit them with shields but oh well in times of war you field what you can.
You may wish to reread his entire post hereticknight, I don't think he is saying what you seem to think he is saying.
That's the unfortunate truth. Games will always have some sort of whacked out trinity like this. And in their attempt to follow the typical MMO (which is what most players expect from this game) they ended up gimping an otherwise magnificent class.
I am not saying I support what they've done to cruisers. Nor can I condemn it.
Then what exactly are you saying? That you like the idea of the holy trinity being emphasized more in the game? That it shouldn't be? Or that you don't care either way?
I have a very simple stance. Different but Equal. No one ship type should be extremely better at any role than another. If the goal is to kill a target six beams should be as effective as three DHCs and 3 turrets. Granted the cannons can be more effective up close and the beams more effective further away provided that enough content supports the variety of engagement ranges. That is good design.
I also fail to see how the design of the game by intent makes players think that is the way it is supposed to be. Instead it is the fault of min/maxing and poor design that leads us down that path. Their are offensive, defensive, self only buff, ally buff, CC, and cleanse abilities for all three boff types in different ways. All 3 hull types have their own offensive nitch (DHC/8 weapons/Sensor Analysis) and defensive nitch (bonus defense/+hull/+shield mod). It just so happens that some scale and work better than others. DHCs are designed around a limited arc and time on target, that is ignored in PvE as an example.
Stronger shields? KDF cruisers have the same shields as Federation cruisers, at 1.0 or 1.1 for fleet versions. Some of them have a slightly weaker hull, but since durability is about diminishing and healing damage rather than absorbing it.... no this doesn't matter. If your hull is 1/20th stronger, then that means you're going to survive 1 in 20 more shots AFTER shield resistance, shield balancing, shield heals, and hull heals have all failed.
KDF battlecruisers have zero problems staying alive. Any hypothetical advantage the Feds have in absorbing damage is more than countered by the fact that battlecruisers kill things faster and are significantly more agile, thus ending or escaping fights more easily.
Personally I would hope that everything I write is evaluated based on its individual merits, rather than being colored by judgements about the worth or accuracy of my entire being...
No, that's the exact opposite of what I said. What ^that would do is force class-based gameplay. If cruisers can't do any worthwhile damage, and if escorts die in a stiff breeze, then you just killed the entire concept of solo play and random teams because your game will require the "correct" mix of ship types to get anywhere.
Versus my viewpoint, which is that a cruiser should be able to kill enemies just as effectively as an escort, but using a somewhat different style of play focused around sustained brawling and power management instead of the escort's slashing attacks and buff stacking.