The problem is that burst is so extremely high in STO at the minute that not having Tac Team would actually be worse for snoozers, because they can't manually maneuver themselves to protect a dead shield facing.
IMO one of the best ways to fix TT would be to have a good long look at reworking the crew mechanic and then tying crew (or "efficiency" or whatever Cryptic wants to call it this month) into TT's automatic shield distro. So a snoozer with a big healthy crew will distribute shields no sweat, while an escort that's taken a heavy beating and only has one or two men standing will struggle.
IMO one of the best ways to fix TT would be to have a good long look at reworking the crew mechanic and then tying crew (or "efficiency" or whatever Cryptic wants to call it this month) into TT's automatic shield distro. So a snoozer with a big healthy crew will distribute shields no sweat, while an escort that's taken a heavy beating and only has one or two men standing will struggle.
That would work great... provided cruisers crew didn't die upon looking at eachother
The problem is that burst is so extremely high in STO at the minute that not having Tac Team would actually be worse for snoozers, because they can't manually maneuver themselves to protect a dead shield facing.
IMO one of the best ways to fix TT would be to have a good long look at reworking the crew mechanic and then tying crew (or "efficiency" or whatever Cryptic wants to call it this month) into TT's automatic shield distro. So a snoozer with a big healthy crew will distribute shields no sweat, while an escort that's taken a heavy beating and only has one or two men standing will struggle.
Yeah the ironic thing is a nerf of tac team would make escorts even BETTER as a tank vs a cruiser as it takes for freaking ever to turn one of those beasts around.
And as for crew mechanics that is funny. No matter crew size they die at the same rate typically and yet the smaller the crew the faster they restore themselves. In other words crew mechanics also favor the escort at the moment since they are all % of crew based.
Cruisers were not originally designed as the 'tank'. They were designed to keep up offensively by having an extra weapon slot. That failed thanks to weapon energy mechanics. They were also designed to have the same amount of effective health as the higher defense escort or stronger shielded sci vessel by virtue of the additional hull. That also failed because it doesn't matter what your total is it only matters how fast you can heal it and skyrocket your resistance rates.
The original design failed and now players have pigeon holed them into the 'tank/healer' role they were never intended for. And thanks to Tholian lockbox ships most PvPers won't even call them the best healers and I still have no clue what on earth players need a tank in any PvE content for beyond ANY SHIP AT ALL with a decent setup and perhaps a touch of cross-healing.
Yeah the ironic thing is a nerf of tac team would make escorts even BETTER as a tank vs a cruiser as it takes for freaking ever to turn one of those beasts around.
And as for crew mechanics that is funny. No matter crew size they die at the same rate typically and yet the smaller the crew the faster they restore themselves. In other words crew mechanics also favor the escort at the moment since they are all % of crew based.
Cruisers were not originally designed as the 'tank'. They were designed to keep up offensively by having an extra weapon slot. That failed thanks to weapon energy mechanics. They were also designed to have the same amount of effective health as the higher defense escort or stronger shielded sci vessel by virtue of the additional hull. That also failed because it doesn't matter what your total is it only matters how fast you can heal it and skyrocket your resistance rates.
The original design failed and now players have pigeon holed them into the 'tank/healer' role they were never intended for. And thanks to Tholian lockbox ships most PvPers won't even call them the best healers and I still have no clue what on earth players need a tank in any PvE content for beyond ANY SHIP AT ALL with a decent setup and perhaps a touch of cross-healing.
This is all 100% true... that's depressing from a cruiser stand point...
You're proving you really don't understand what tanking is about either. The idea is not only to be unkillable and keep yourself alive.... you ALSO need to HOLD AGRO. If you're not HOLDING AGRO all your invincibleness is wasted. So you end up with a super tough ship that isn't taking advantage of its most beneficial traits because it never gets targetted! If you do end up getting targetted at all it probably happens when the escort that was actually tanking finally pops and the NPC baddies look for other targets.
How often do we hear this very same incorrect statement "tanking is about not getting killed"? How is it that holding agro is missed so often?
Wonder which ship is better at holding agro, the cruiser or the escort? The Sci Vessel doesn't really need to hold agro as they can just power drain the baddie into useless if desired but hey if they want they get to pack the most shiny new +agro consoles of all the ships on average now so that is kinda neat eh?
All signs still pointing to cruisers being underpowered no matter how hard some try to push them into the role they were not designed in any way to do because it is the only role other ships don't bother with.
*edit*
That just might be a good sig. "Cruiser tanks, cause everyone else had something important to do"
You guys are probably wondering where I have been in this entire thread, since you guys know how much of a cruiser fan I am, and how much I feel that cruisers got slighted. Well I was just watching this thread, seeing where it was going, waiting for it to collapse on itself and turn into a cruisers vs escort war.
Well the Cruisers vs Escorts has happened. That's unavoidable. However I will now post my thoughts on this matter.
Cruisers are over-utilized. Seriously over-utilized, sometimes with almost disgusting incompetence. We have all had our fair share of rainbow oddys that have no defenses being flown by tac captains. We have also all had our fair share of engi cruisers with no teeth since the players again usually run rainbows and don't know how to use their limited tac BOff slots for maximum damage. And we have all seen the amazing healboats run by engis and science captains, but again, with no teeth.
Now Cruisers are working as intended. But because of how equipment and skills have been changed, the lines between roles have been blurred. Cruisers used to be tanky health-wise and have good shields. But since changes were made, that extra 6k hp average they have over escorts doesn't mean a thing. I know from personal experience since I can very VERY easily do 8k in one salvo (if not one hit). Escorts used to be squishy DPS. But since changes were made to heals and the like, they can now do the DPS and left the squishy at home asleep. Science used to be the CC and life ruining class. But since changes were made, many science abilities are downright jokes if not used properly and at very VERY specific situations and times.
Cruisers may have sustained damage, but they have no innate aggro drawing abilities which would make their increased hull and engineering consoles useful. Also, tanks in general are useless due to the inability again to draw aggro easily without having huge damage output (I can sometimes draw aggro off of escorts, but it's hard) and without sacrificing large amounts of skillpoints to do it. Wee all agree that a Science Odyssey with maxed out shield power and it's LtCmdr gone to sci will never die. There's just too much healing potential and way too much defense for it to die. But here's the catch. As great as a ship like that would be for tanking and survival, it has no way of drawing aggro, unless you again sacrifice skillpoints.
Many cruiser captains like myself fly more than one ship-type. I fly an escort and a cruiser, depending on my mood. But... my FPE, as amazing as it is, if it had aggro all the time, it would just go splat. Easily (despite me having put lots of effort into building it to survive). That being the case, I can't put points in if I want to fly anything other than a tank. Which most days I am ok with, but there are days when I just want to zoom around and splatter things with DHCs.
Which brings me to another blatent weakness that cruisers have. Their turn rate is reminiscent of an a container ship. Do you know how long it takes for one to turn and how far it has to travel? Yeah, that's your average cruiser. It's even worse with the Odyssey. The Odyssey is a fully loaded oil tanker when it comes to turn rate. Also, they can't get moving real quick, and are slow. I am ok with the low movement speed. It's all a matter of physics. But the turn rate? It's pretty much universally accepted that if all cruisers got a +2 turn buff, everyone would be happy. It's not enough to infringe on movement rights of science ships or escorts, however it remains enough to make cruisers a little less painful to fly.
Which brings me another weakness of cruisers. Engineering consoles. They are among the weakest out of all the consoles. First off, defensive consoles suffer from a rather insane defensive drop-off per console. I personally still don't get the system, despite attempts to explain it from Shimmerless (I thank you again for trying), but it's not a linear system, far from it. It's more of a logarythmic system, with the first console providing X%, the next one less, and so on and so forth to the point where a 4th console that boosts your defense by 20 (in this case neutronium) won't boost your defense by more than 5 or 6%. The same cannot be said of any of the other consoles, not to that extent. Tactical consoles will provide large boosts, with a 4th console boosting by 30% only being reduced to about 12-15%, and science consoles just outright stack in a linear fashion. That in turn makes it so you can have only 2 engi consoles available, and you will only have maybe 10-15% less defense than the same ship with 4 consoles available, whereas if you did the same thing with tac consoles, you would lose out on only 35-40% damage, and with science, you would straight lose out 50% of your science boosts. Sufficed to say, I don't like that XD.
My final issue with cruisers is actually my issue with this game. The class distinctions are either imbalanced or blurred beyond reason. If this game had a true trinity, with true specialization (as in more than SLIGHT differences between the classes) then it would be more interesting, and the ships as a whole would be better. The fact that a tank class only has maybe 10% more defensive ability than the damage class (with the damage discrepancy being far more than 10%) just doesn't sit right with me. And the fact an entire class (science) was just derped into uselessness also just is wrong to me. I think the main issue many players have with this game is that damage dealers can do it all. The added specialization ability of engis and science class captains really isn't enough to me. But that's just me being a prude, so you can probably ignore it.
My final statement (basically the TLDR): Cruisers are working as intended. But their role is not needed with the way this game works. As a result, they seem underpowered. And they are in a few respects. Or if not underpowered, they could use a boost.
As a final random statement, I still wish you could put the unique oddy and bort consoles onto those ships without sacrificing any of the 10 regular consoles. XD.
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.
As for the thread in general, I've given up trying to discuss it. If somebody over at Cryptic asks me "Hey Mo, what do you think about cruisers? Do they need some adjustments?" then I will be happy to give them an ear full. But I don't see any sign that Cryptic is paying attention or even that they think there is a problem. So discussion is kind of pointless.
As for the thread in general, I've given up trying to discuss it. If somebody over at Cryptic asks me "Hey Mo, what do you think about cruisers? Do they need some adjustments?" then I will be happy to give them an ear full. But I don't see any sign that Cryptic is paying attention or even that they think there is a problem. So discussion is kind of pointless.
As you said, makes most people's brains hurt. I understand how that works, and think it's incredibly stupid. And you're correct, most likely nobody is listening. XD
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.
I always thought it would be better if somewhere it listed your effective hull points somewhere. That would help a tad with the armor resistance confusion a bit.
As you said, makes most people's brains hurt. I understand how that works, and think it's incredibly stupid. And you're correct, most likely nobody is listening. XD
Damage is linear while defences use a [1-1/(1+x)] type of model to prevent reducing damage to zero. If resistances stacked in a linear fashion then you could conceivably reach 100% resistance and avoid all damage, regardless of how much an attacker buffed it. That's what you need to keep in mind, they are independent of each other. Attackers deal damage while defenders resist percentages. That's why it doesn't matter how high an attacker buffs their damage, a defender will always take a % of it. The higher the resistances the lower the % taken.
This type of damage mitigation is often favored in game design because it allows a lot of latitude without being limited by hard caps. Granted it gets hit with ridiculous DR at high defensive values and then it becomes a design balancing act as gear inflation takes place. I would even propose the reason we haven't seen ships really go up in power dramatically is an attempt to keep gear progression in check since they already know that defences are already hitting really high percentages if players really decide to go for it.
Edit: I agree that a mere +2 to turning would make cruisers a lot more fun to play and would even add their effectiveness since they could more reliably get to critical spots.
Also, I think its true that in the game's original design all ships did comparable damage and had comparable survivability... they would just go about it in different ways. I don't know WHY that plan was abandoned as it really would make the game more interesting.
All that said I think cruisers suffer the most from having poor pilots. Lets not kid ourselves, for a new player leveling in an escort or sci vessel is HARD. They don't know how to stay alive and deal damage so they gravitate towards cruisers that can easily carry anyone through the PvE levelling content without actually teaching anything about how to play. I know this because that's what I did. It wasn't until I saw someone being effective with a non cruiser that I started to look at HOW to build ships and use them properly. I would say a lot of the people complaining cruisers are drastically underpowered have noticed others playing well and instead of choosing to learn themselves prefer to complain. Perhaps they are a cruiser fan that desperately wants their favorite ships to be above all others in everything, perhaps they simply don't think they should be forced to learn a totally different game than the one they played while pve leveling in a cruiser (a valid complain actually), or maybe they are still in the process of learning and will understand how to get the most out of their ships eventually.
On the other hand if someone's complaint is that the way the ship roles have evolved into high dps/medium survivability, medium dps/high survivability, and High CC/medium survivability is not to their liking and has several flaws as a system... that can be valid. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure how to bring all ships to do equal DPS, while having equal survivability... except maybe making cruisers more like escorts? Lower their defences while adding a few points of turning and maybe switching an eng console to a tac one? Admittedly what I suggest is more or less making fed cruisers into KDF battlecruisers. Do KDF players feel their cruisers are underpowered too?
Also, I think its true that in the game's original design all ships did comparable damage and had comparable survivability... they would just go about it in different ways. I don't know WHY that plan was abandoned as it really would make the game more interesting.
On the other hand if someone's complaint is that the way the ship roles have evolved into high dps/medium survivability, medium dps/high survivability, and High CC/medium survivability is not to their liking and has several flaws as a system... that can be valid. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure how to bring all ships to do equal DPS, while having equal survivability... except maybe making cruisers more like escorts? Lower their defences while adding a few points of turning and maybe switching an eng console to a tac one? Admittedly what I suggest is more or less making fed cruisers into KDF battlecruisers. Do KDF players feel their cruisers are underpowered too?
This is exactly why I feel they are underpowered and no I do not find the KDF battlecruiers I fly (2 of 'em) to be underpowered. Actually I feel my fleet Vor'Cha is a bit overpowered but its all good.
How to make them all deal equal amounts of damage is also very simple even if the Devs refuse to do it aside from adding new gear/doff stuff to compensate.
1) Make passive hull regeneration in combat meaningful.
2) Fix power drain mechanics so they stop favoring DHCs so much.
3) Add rear beam arrays with 8 power drain that can only be placed in the rear. Reduce the arc by 10% if needed to keep damage similar.
4) Add 180 degree torpedoes that are not a) found on a single ship nor b) Mk X only.
Aside from a quick balance pass to boff abilities that is all one would need to do.
^^^^ This guy knows what's up. Listen and learn, folks.
Oh please. Learn what, how he does things, under the circumstances he finds himself? I keep myself alive just fine, all the while delivering adult-sized DPS, and this without having to depend on a cruiser to do it. If I haven't learned to mitigate damage all by my lonesome, by now, then I would deserve the handle "useless."
What? Something wrong with the Regent's one redeeming quality? If you REALLY want a second 180 degree weapon how about the lobi rapid fire missiles?
I refuse to pay that much cash for a weapon type that has no realistic reason not to exist as a standard option. If I wish to fly a broadside ship with a torpedo that does not reduce my overall DPS output I should not be forced to spend $25 for it. I don't care if I can only slot one of them or eight of them.
And its not like I cannot afford it. I purchase 3 new Cstore ships this month alone. It is the principal of the matter.
I find that just as repulsive as paying cash for a skill respec when cryptic refuses to give the players the necessary information to make an informed decision. Especially when some of the information they do provide is flat-out false.
This is exactly why I feel they are underpowered and no I do not find the KDF battlecruiers I fly (2 of 'em) to be underpowered. Actually I feel my fleet Vor'Cha is a bit overpowered but its all good.
Fleet Vor'cha isn't even really a cruiser anymore, in my book. They should have upgraded the Vor'cha's ensign tactical to lieutenant tactical and given it the extra tactical console, and called it good. They went too far by giving it LTC tactical and chopping the engineering.
Which really just underscores the fact that anything tactical has waaaaaaay more impact on your game performance generally than anything else. Tactical wins fights, engineering prolongs them, and science is a weird grab bag of useful gadgets and completely pointless "cooldown is HOW long??" novelties.
The problem is that burst is so extremely high in STO at the minute that not having Tac Team would actually be worse for snoozers, because they can't manually maneuver themselves to protect a dead shield facing.
A well equipped Excelsior can manually maneuver to give a fresh shield facing to its enemy. Other cruisers, not so much.
IMO one of the best ways to fix TT would be to have a good long look at reworking the crew mechanic and then tying crew (or "efficiency" or whatever Cryptic wants to call it this month) into TT's automatic shield distro. So a snoozer with a big healthy crew will distribute shields no sweat, while an escort that's taken a heavy beating and only has one or two men standing will struggle.
All of the "____ Team" abilities should have a multiplier tied to its crew level. It would make higher crew level ships of a class (Star Cruiser, Nebula, the old "Fleet Escort") more useful.
No, it just gives you a slightly better regen when you hit distribute shield power as well as passive shield regen. NOT more resistance.
False. It gives both resistance and shield regen. It double dips and is extremely...stronger in effectiveness than engine or auxiliary power just like weapon power is very strong with the math.
All of the "____ Team" abilities should have a multiplier tied to its crew level. It would make higher crew level ships of a class (Star Cruiser, Nebula, the old "Fleet Escort") more useful.
I believe they do, just not on the important factor. Tac Team skill bonus gets lower the more of your crew that die off it just does not effect the shield transfer rate last I checked.
No, it just gives you a slightly better regen when you hit distribute shield power as well as passive shield regen. NOT more resistance.
Really? Having a high shield power setting does nothing to help a shields damage resistance?
Shields
The Shields subsystem controls how effective your Shield Array is at regenerating shield power every six seconds. It does not affect how much shield strength your shield facings have.
50 power into this system represents 100% shield regeneration as given on your Shield Array tooltip. Every additional point of power applied to this subsystem will increase your shield regeneration value by 4%. Every point of power under 50 will reduce your shield regeneration by 4%.
Higher shield power also improves shield resistance. At 125 power, shields gain an innate resistance of 35%
That sucks, I've been working on the premise it helped.
I must say that with the exception of an Excelsior and some toying with a Recluse, my Fed toons, regardless of class, end up going with Escorts.
As long as this game stays DPS-centric, I have no choice.
Yup. That's the name of the game. So much so, that it's at the point where I am going to go for a fleet defiant (and NO, I do NOT want a bloody battle-cloak) and probably stay in it. Or just live in my FPE. OR be an TRIBBLE and despite getting yelled at continue to fly my Odyssey. Actually I think I'll go with that last one.
On another random note, I still wish the Oddy could use the 3 unique consoles without using up any of it's regular 10 consoles XD. Or at least make the set bonus not total garbage. Cuz that's the only reason I don't run all 3. The bonus is terrible. Buff that, and I will be a little happier (not just the oddy, but bort too).
That little "Heretic wanting his flagship to be a flagship" aside, on the topic of cruisers, they really really REALLY need a turn rate boost and inertia improvement. They may be working as intended, but if working as intended means doing very little to nothing unless flown by a competent pilot (which most of us know that they are far and few between) then this game really needs to be looked at.
Let's take a look at what this game offers you compared to cruisers.
We have fast, maneuverable ships that have a ton of forward firepower, but if you get out of that front arc have their damage cut by almost 80%. However that's where the fast and maneuverable comes in. Have you ever tried to get out of a Defiant's firing arc as a cruiser? It's a little hard to do. Hell even other escorts have difficulty doing it. BoPs are fine =P.
What do these fast little hard hitters sacrifice? 20% hull, 30% shields (on paper, in actuality both of those values are closer to only 10-15%), fewer engineering BOffs and consoles (the consoles are a moot point with how resistance works in this game, and you can get all the survivability you need from a Lt and ensign engi, or just the Lt). You also have a smaller crew (also a semi-moot point since this game does things off of percentage of crew alive instead of actual numbers) and a slightly lower hull regen rate.
We also have lower hulled heavily shielded craft that can cause mayhem and madness with crowd control and pretty colors. They also have the best heals over time, and access to some of the most entertaining abilities (oh come on, you know you love a good grav well and tykens rift). They also have one of the funniest final captain abilities (photonic fleet is lulzy, esp how much aggro it actually holds).
What do they sacrifice? 30-35% hull (on paper, in actuality it turns out to more like 25-28%), and engineering consoles and BOff abilities (also a null point again due to what was mentioned with escorts) and a smaller crew (moot point again) with a slightly lower hull regen.
Lastly, you have giant fat mofos with a frakkin TON of hp and shields, which can't turn to save their lives (ever. period) but make up for it by again being giant walls of meat and shields, and they have hangars. Which spit out fighters. And other fun things. And in the case of the Vo'Quv, BoPs that can be very nasty.
What do they give up? Compared to cruisers, almost nothing. Just 2 weapons, a tiny turn rate reduction, and that's about it.
Then we look at cruisers. They have the highest hull (second only to carriers), pretty good shields, and the most weapons out of all the ships. They also have the most engineering consoles and BOff slots, and they also have the most balanced power bonuses out of the 4 classes (no, I will NOT count fighters and smaller craft).
What do they sacrifice? Turn rate. Your average cruiser will only have 40% the turn rate of an escort, and only 60% the turn rate of most science ships. They also have an inertia that is usually 4x that of an escort, and 2.5-3x that of most science ships. They also cannot use dual (heavy) cannons. BUT THAT'S IT.
So based off of what I just went over (if I missed anything, feel free to add on), Cruisers actually only got slightly shafted (or did they?). Other than a disgusting turn rate and inertia, cruisers are great ships. They have all around boosted power, and they have the highest hulls (which everyone knows is useful against borg torps). They also have the best survivability in all those engi BOff slots, and if you're an engi captain, you can use them most effectively (since they have Cmdr level BOffs, they can use Aux2SIF3, RSP3, EPtX3 (if it's an engi), and other such goodies). HOWEVER... that low turn rate and high inertia means controlling your ship is a chore on a good day. And when you need to get your ship around (either for another pass or to change shield facings between your tac teams) it takes all of this week and most of the next. Which actually cuts down on survivability. You also have the lowest dodge rate, BY A TON!!! (yes, 10% is a lot).
Does it balance out? I don't think so personally. The disparity of maneuverability between even sci ships and cruisers is too much, to say nothing of cruisers and escorts. Yes, you gain a ton more hull, but in all honesty, as I stated on more than one occasion, with how skills are and with how burst is, believe it or not, 8k is actually not much at all, heck even 12k isn't that much. Also the more engi consoles? So what? At most you'll have maybe 10% more resistance than equivalent science ships and escorts. Which is a null point since those other two classes are more likely to dodge (there's where that 10% actually means something). In the end, cruisers just have no point anymore. Their healing ability is easily outdone by a science ship, and their tanking ability is only somewhat better than an escort. All they are really good at doing is taking hits. Which is where carriers outdo them. And carriers are actually more useful, since courtesy of their fighters, they can dps pretty hard.
Take what you will from this post lol...
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.
In short: Cruisers are not underpowered. Beams (more precisely, single beam array broad side builds) are.
Why must you insist upon shooting yourself in the foot so often? It makes me cringe every time I read posts like the one you just did.
You just negated your own argument with that post. Beam Array broadside builds are underpowered. That is far from true, but going with that, I will ask you, what are most federation cruisers limited to using as a result of weapon restrictions and their low turn rate and horrible inertia? Yeah, that's right, Beam Array broadside builds.
Sooo... yeah... -.-
P.S I added on distinction "federation cruisers" simply because the KDF Vor'cha Retrofit and Fleet Tor'Kaht Retrofit basically break the mold as KDF battlecruisers go.
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.
It's a little frustrating that I've went through the trouble of explaining in detail how resistance consoles work only for people to still promulgate the misinformation about "diminishing returns" or whatever, to the point where I'm seeing people in ESD talking about it no less.
Engineering consoles do not have diminishing returns. The way they work is counterintuitive, but each console adds just as much as the last one.
When you give a cruiser a turn rate of around 10 degrees a second, and give it an LTC tactical slot to play with, it stops being a passive slab of hull plating.
It's a little frustrating that I've went through the trouble of explaining in detail how resistance consoles work only for people to still promulgate the misinformation about "diminishing returns" or whatever, to the point where I'm seeing people in ESD talking about it no less.
Engineering consoles do not have diminishing returns. The way they work is counterintuitive, but each console adds just as much as the last one.
I accept this. It just annoys me a little since it seems that other consoles are more effective for much cheaper.
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.
Moving the subject away from claims that cruisers are underpowered (which are hard to take seriously given so few seem to understand how to build their ship) and onto the issue with beam arrays is more productive, I think.
As I see it, the problem is two-fold:
a) Cryptic cannot seem to balance the Fed cruiser's main damage ability, FAW. It was once (intentionally? Unintentionally?) too strong so it's been nerfed to the point where it's too weak.
b) This is more a personal opinion coming from someone who likes fast or agile ships, but the Fed snoozer is penalized too hard through beam damage dropoff due to distance from their target(s). Ships that struggle to turn shouldn't be punished so hard, it's a kind of double-dipping.
Moving the subject away from claims that cruisers are underpowered (which are hard to take seriously given so few seem to understand how to build their ship) and onto the issue with beam arrays is more productive, I think.
As I see it, the problem is two-fold:
a) Cryptic cannot seem to balance the Fed cruiser's main damage ability, FAW. It was once (intentionally? Unintentionally?) too strong so it's been nerfed to the point where it's too weak.
b) This is more a personal opinion coming from someone who likes fast or agile ships, but the Fed snoozer is penalized too hard through beam damage dropoff due to distance from their target(s). Ships that struggle to turn shouldn't be punished so hard, it's a kind of double-dipping.
FAW was indeed better once upon a time, but it has always been more akin to cannon scatter volley skill than the rapid cannon fire skill. I'm not sure what the best approach would be here.
Point B is where I believe we should focus more attention for beam arrays. The options to improve this could possibly be:
a) Eliminate range damage drop off entirely so the damage is always consistent.
b) Reduce the range damage drop off and also increase the damage as the target gets closer. This would give beams more punch.
c) Give beams more range so they have a longer engagement range.
d) Add an additional volley to the firing cycle to increase damage output.
Posters have also suggested heavy beam arrays for cruisers that would work more like heavy cannons giving more spike damage potential.
I would rather beams had their drain reduced with a small damage boost, 6 beam broadsides do need to be more viable.
Given cruisers are supposed to have the best warp cores in the fleet give them more bonus to each subsystem and/or give them resistance to all energy drains (Building over time as per the Aegis set shield bonus) this would allow cruiser damage to build up during a longer fight (as per science ships) it could also help with the power chomping FAW, an extra +5 to all subsystems would improve their maneuverability, resistance, healing and damage.
Then for engineers buff their Nadion inversion as it really is weak by comparison to other captain skills.
Comments
IMO one of the best ways to fix TT would be to have a good long look at reworking the crew mechanic and then tying crew (or "efficiency" or whatever Cryptic wants to call it this month) into TT's automatic shield distro. So a snoozer with a big healthy crew will distribute shields no sweat, while an escort that's taken a heavy beating and only has one or two men standing will struggle.
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
That would work great... provided cruisers crew didn't die upon looking at eachother
Yeah the ironic thing is a nerf of tac team would make escorts even BETTER as a tank vs a cruiser as it takes for freaking ever to turn one of those beasts around.
And as for crew mechanics that is funny. No matter crew size they die at the same rate typically and yet the smaller the crew the faster they restore themselves. In other words crew mechanics also favor the escort at the moment since they are all % of crew based.
Cruisers were not originally designed as the 'tank'. They were designed to keep up offensively by having an extra weapon slot. That failed thanks to weapon energy mechanics. They were also designed to have the same amount of effective health as the higher defense escort or stronger shielded sci vessel by virtue of the additional hull. That also failed because it doesn't matter what your total is it only matters how fast you can heal it and skyrocket your resistance rates.
The original design failed and now players have pigeon holed them into the 'tank/healer' role they were never intended for. And thanks to Tholian lockbox ships most PvPers won't even call them the best healers and I still have no clue what on earth players need a tank in any PvE content for beyond ANY SHIP AT ALL with a decent setup and perhaps a touch of cross-healing.
This is all 100% true... that's depressing from a cruiser stand point...
Wonder which ship is better at holding agro, the cruiser or the escort? The Sci Vessel doesn't really need to hold agro as they can just power drain the baddie into useless if desired but hey if they want they get to pack the most shiny new +agro consoles of all the ships on average now so that is kinda neat eh?
All signs still pointing to cruisers being underpowered no matter how hard some try to push them into the role they were not designed in any way to do because it is the only role other ships don't bother with.
*edit*
That just might be a good sig. "Cruiser tanks, cause everyone else had something important to do"
Well the Cruisers vs Escorts has happened. That's unavoidable. However I will now post my thoughts on this matter.
Cruisers are over-utilized. Seriously over-utilized, sometimes with almost disgusting incompetence. We have all had our fair share of rainbow oddys that have no defenses being flown by tac captains. We have also all had our fair share of engi cruisers with no teeth since the players again usually run rainbows and don't know how to use their limited tac BOff slots for maximum damage. And we have all seen the amazing healboats run by engis and science captains, but again, with no teeth.
Now Cruisers are working as intended. But because of how equipment and skills have been changed, the lines between roles have been blurred. Cruisers used to be tanky health-wise and have good shields. But since changes were made, that extra 6k hp average they have over escorts doesn't mean a thing. I know from personal experience since I can very VERY easily do 8k in one salvo (if not one hit). Escorts used to be squishy DPS. But since changes were made to heals and the like, they can now do the DPS and left the squishy at home asleep. Science used to be the CC and life ruining class. But since changes were made, many science abilities are downright jokes if not used properly and at very VERY specific situations and times.
Cruisers may have sustained damage, but they have no innate aggro drawing abilities which would make their increased hull and engineering consoles useful. Also, tanks in general are useless due to the inability again to draw aggro easily without having huge damage output (I can sometimes draw aggro off of escorts, but it's hard) and without sacrificing large amounts of skillpoints to do it. Wee all agree that a Science Odyssey with maxed out shield power and it's LtCmdr gone to sci will never die. There's just too much healing potential and way too much defense for it to die. But here's the catch. As great as a ship like that would be for tanking and survival, it has no way of drawing aggro, unless you again sacrifice skillpoints.
Many cruiser captains like myself fly more than one ship-type. I fly an escort and a cruiser, depending on my mood. But... my FPE, as amazing as it is, if it had aggro all the time, it would just go splat. Easily (despite me having put lots of effort into building it to survive). That being the case, I can't put points in if I want to fly anything other than a tank. Which most days I am ok with, but there are days when I just want to zoom around and splatter things with DHCs.
Which brings me to another blatent weakness that cruisers have. Their turn rate is reminiscent of an a container ship. Do you know how long it takes for one to turn and how far it has to travel? Yeah, that's your average cruiser. It's even worse with the Odyssey. The Odyssey is a fully loaded oil tanker when it comes to turn rate. Also, they can't get moving real quick, and are slow. I am ok with the low movement speed. It's all a matter of physics. But the turn rate? It's pretty much universally accepted that if all cruisers got a +2 turn buff, everyone would be happy. It's not enough to infringe on movement rights of science ships or escorts, however it remains enough to make cruisers a little less painful to fly.
Which brings me another weakness of cruisers. Engineering consoles. They are among the weakest out of all the consoles. First off, defensive consoles suffer from a rather insane defensive drop-off per console. I personally still don't get the system, despite attempts to explain it from Shimmerless (I thank you again for trying), but it's not a linear system, far from it. It's more of a logarythmic system, with the first console providing X%, the next one less, and so on and so forth to the point where a 4th console that boosts your defense by 20 (in this case neutronium) won't boost your defense by more than 5 or 6%. The same cannot be said of any of the other consoles, not to that extent. Tactical consoles will provide large boosts, with a 4th console boosting by 30% only being reduced to about 12-15%, and science consoles just outright stack in a linear fashion. That in turn makes it so you can have only 2 engi consoles available, and you will only have maybe 10-15% less defense than the same ship with 4 consoles available, whereas if you did the same thing with tac consoles, you would lose out on only 35-40% damage, and with science, you would straight lose out 50% of your science boosts. Sufficed to say, I don't like that XD.
My final issue with cruisers is actually my issue with this game. The class distinctions are either imbalanced or blurred beyond reason. If this game had a true trinity, with true specialization (as in more than SLIGHT differences between the classes) then it would be more interesting, and the ships as a whole would be better. The fact that a tank class only has maybe 10% more defensive ability than the damage class (with the damage discrepancy being far more than 10%) just doesn't sit right with me. And the fact an entire class (science) was just derped into uselessness also just is wrong to me. I think the main issue many players have with this game is that damage dealers can do it all. The added specialization ability of engis and science class captains really isn't enough to me. But that's just me being a prude, so you can probably ignore it.
My final statement (basically the TLDR): Cruisers are working as intended. But their role is not needed with the way this game works. As a result, they seem underpowered. And they are in a few respects. Or if not underpowered, they could use a boost.
As a final random statement, I still wish you could put the unique oddy and bort consoles onto those ships without sacrificing any of the 10 regular consoles. XD.
Armor stacks fine, just in a completely unintuitive way that will make your brain hurt. See if this helps.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=6504631&postcount=75
As for the thread in general, I've given up trying to discuss it. If somebody over at Cryptic asks me "Hey Mo, what do you think about cruisers? Do they need some adjustments?" then I will be happy to give them an ear full. But I don't see any sign that Cryptic is paying attention or even that they think there is a problem. So discussion is kind of pointless.
As you said, makes most people's brains hurt. I understand how that works, and think it's incredibly stupid. And you're correct, most likely nobody is listening. XD
Damage is linear while defences use a [1-1/(1+x)] type of model to prevent reducing damage to zero. If resistances stacked in a linear fashion then you could conceivably reach 100% resistance and avoid all damage, regardless of how much an attacker buffed it. That's what you need to keep in mind, they are independent of each other. Attackers deal damage while defenders resist percentages. That's why it doesn't matter how high an attacker buffs their damage, a defender will always take a % of it. The higher the resistances the lower the % taken.
This type of damage mitigation is often favored in game design because it allows a lot of latitude without being limited by hard caps. Granted it gets hit with ridiculous DR at high defensive values and then it becomes a design balancing act as gear inflation takes place. I would even propose the reason we haven't seen ships really go up in power dramatically is an attempt to keep gear progression in check since they already know that defences are already hitting really high percentages if players really decide to go for it.
Edit: I agree that a mere +2 to turning would make cruisers a lot more fun to play and would even add their effectiveness since they could more reliably get to critical spots.
Also, I think its true that in the game's original design all ships did comparable damage and had comparable survivability... they would just go about it in different ways. I don't know WHY that plan was abandoned as it really would make the game more interesting.
All that said I think cruisers suffer the most from having poor pilots. Lets not kid ourselves, for a new player leveling in an escort or sci vessel is HARD. They don't know how to stay alive and deal damage so they gravitate towards cruisers that can easily carry anyone through the PvE levelling content without actually teaching anything about how to play. I know this because that's what I did. It wasn't until I saw someone being effective with a non cruiser that I started to look at HOW to build ships and use them properly. I would say a lot of the people complaining cruisers are drastically underpowered have noticed others playing well and instead of choosing to learn themselves prefer to complain. Perhaps they are a cruiser fan that desperately wants their favorite ships to be above all others in everything, perhaps they simply don't think they should be forced to learn a totally different game than the one they played while pve leveling in a cruiser (a valid complain actually), or maybe they are still in the process of learning and will understand how to get the most out of their ships eventually.
On the other hand if someone's complaint is that the way the ship roles have evolved into high dps/medium survivability, medium dps/high survivability, and High CC/medium survivability is not to their liking and has several flaws as a system... that can be valid. Honestly, at this point I'm not sure how to bring all ships to do equal DPS, while having equal survivability... except maybe making cruisers more like escorts? Lower their defences while adding a few points of turning and maybe switching an eng console to a tac one? Admittedly what I suggest is more or less making fed cruisers into KDF battlecruisers. Do KDF players feel their cruisers are underpowered too?
This is exactly why I feel they are underpowered and no I do not find the KDF battlecruiers I fly (2 of 'em) to be underpowered. Actually I feel my fleet Vor'Cha is a bit overpowered but its all good.
How to make them all deal equal amounts of damage is also very simple even if the Devs refuse to do it aside from adding new gear/doff stuff to compensate.
1) Make passive hull regeneration in combat meaningful.
2) Fix power drain mechanics so they stop favoring DHCs so much.
3) Add rear beam arrays with 8 power drain that can only be placed in the rear. Reduce the arc by 10% if needed to keep damage similar.
4) Add 180 degree torpedoes that are not a) found on a single ship nor b) Mk X only.
Aside from a quick balance pass to boff abilities that is all one would need to do.
Oh please. Learn what, how he does things, under the circumstances he finds himself? I keep myself alive just fine, all the while delivering adult-sized DPS, and this without having to depend on a cruiser to do it. If I haven't learned to mitigate damage all by my lonesome, by now, then I would deserve the handle "useless."
What? Something wrong with the Regent's one redeeming quality? If you REALLY want a second 180 degree weapon how about the lobi rapid fire missiles?
I refuse to pay that much cash for a weapon type that has no realistic reason not to exist as a standard option. If I wish to fly a broadside ship with a torpedo that does not reduce my overall DPS output I should not be forced to spend $25 for it. I don't care if I can only slot one of them or eight of them.
And its not like I cannot afford it. I purchase 3 new Cstore ships this month alone. It is the principal of the matter.
I find that just as repulsive as paying cash for a skill respec when cryptic refuses to give the players the necessary information to make an informed decision. Especially when some of the information they do provide is flat-out false.
But hey, that is just me.
Fleet Vor'cha isn't even really a cruiser anymore, in my book. They should have upgraded the Vor'cha's ensign tactical to lieutenant tactical and given it the extra tactical console, and called it good. They went too far by giving it LTC tactical and chopping the engineering.
Which really just underscores the fact that anything tactical has waaaaaaay more impact on your game performance generally than anything else. Tactical wins fights, engineering prolongs them, and science is a weird grab bag of useful gadgets and completely pointless "cooldown is HOW long??" novelties.
A well equipped Excelsior can manually maneuver to give a fresh shield facing to its enemy. Other cruisers, not so much.
All of the "____ Team" abilities should have a multiplier tied to its crew level. It would make higher crew level ships of a class (Star Cruiser, Nebula, the old "Fleet Escort") more useful.
No, it just gives you a slightly better regen when you hit distribute shield power as well as passive shield regen. NOT more resistance.
i3-2100 3.10GHz
8GB Kingston HyperX Fury Blue 1333Mhz DDR3 RAM CL9
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 660 OC 2GB GDDR5
False. It gives both resistance and shield regen. It double dips and is extremely...stronger in effectiveness than engine or auxiliary power just like weapon power is very strong with the math.
I believe they do, just not on the important factor. Tac Team skill bonus gets lower the more of your crew that die off it just does not effect the shield transfer rate last I checked.
Really? Having a high shield power setting does nothing to help a shields damage resistance?
That sucks, I've been working on the premise it helped.
R.I.P
As long as this game stays DPS-centric, I have no choice.
Yup. That's the name of the game. So much so, that it's at the point where I am going to go for a fleet defiant (and NO, I do NOT want a bloody battle-cloak) and probably stay in it. Or just live in my FPE. OR be an TRIBBLE and despite getting yelled at continue to fly my Odyssey. Actually I think I'll go with that last one.
On another random note, I still wish the Oddy could use the 3 unique consoles without using up any of it's regular 10 consoles XD. Or at least make the set bonus not total garbage. Cuz that's the only reason I don't run all 3. The bonus is terrible. Buff that, and I will be a little happier (not just the oddy, but bort too).
That little "Heretic wanting his flagship to be a flagship" aside, on the topic of cruisers, they really really REALLY need a turn rate boost and inertia improvement. They may be working as intended, but if working as intended means doing very little to nothing unless flown by a competent pilot (which most of us know that they are far and few between) then this game really needs to be looked at.
Let's take a look at what this game offers you compared to cruisers.
We have fast, maneuverable ships that have a ton of forward firepower, but if you get out of that front arc have their damage cut by almost 80%. However that's where the fast and maneuverable comes in. Have you ever tried to get out of a Defiant's firing arc as a cruiser? It's a little hard to do. Hell even other escorts have difficulty doing it. BoPs are fine =P.
What do these fast little hard hitters sacrifice? 20% hull, 30% shields (on paper, in actuality both of those values are closer to only 10-15%), fewer engineering BOffs and consoles (the consoles are a moot point with how resistance works in this game, and you can get all the survivability you need from a Lt and ensign engi, or just the Lt). You also have a smaller crew (also a semi-moot point since this game does things off of percentage of crew alive instead of actual numbers) and a slightly lower hull regen rate.
We also have lower hulled heavily shielded craft that can cause mayhem and madness with crowd control and pretty colors. They also have the best heals over time, and access to some of the most entertaining abilities (oh come on, you know you love a good grav well and tykens rift). They also have one of the funniest final captain abilities (photonic fleet is lulzy, esp how much aggro it actually holds).
What do they sacrifice? 30-35% hull (on paper, in actuality it turns out to more like 25-28%), and engineering consoles and BOff abilities (also a null point again due to what was mentioned with escorts) and a smaller crew (moot point again) with a slightly lower hull regen.
Lastly, you have giant fat mofos with a frakkin TON of hp and shields, which can't turn to save their lives (ever. period) but make up for it by again being giant walls of meat and shields, and they have hangars. Which spit out fighters. And other fun things. And in the case of the Vo'Quv, BoPs that can be very nasty.
What do they give up? Compared to cruisers, almost nothing. Just 2 weapons, a tiny turn rate reduction, and that's about it.
Then we look at cruisers. They have the highest hull (second only to carriers), pretty good shields, and the most weapons out of all the ships. They also have the most engineering consoles and BOff slots, and they also have the most balanced power bonuses out of the 4 classes (no, I will NOT count fighters and smaller craft).
What do they sacrifice? Turn rate. Your average cruiser will only have 40% the turn rate of an escort, and only 60% the turn rate of most science ships. They also have an inertia that is usually 4x that of an escort, and 2.5-3x that of most science ships. They also cannot use dual (heavy) cannons. BUT THAT'S IT.
So based off of what I just went over (if I missed anything, feel free to add on), Cruisers actually only got slightly shafted (or did they?). Other than a disgusting turn rate and inertia, cruisers are great ships. They have all around boosted power, and they have the highest hulls (which everyone knows is useful against borg torps). They also have the best survivability in all those engi BOff slots, and if you're an engi captain, you can use them most effectively (since they have Cmdr level BOffs, they can use Aux2SIF3, RSP3, EPtX3 (if it's an engi), and other such goodies). HOWEVER... that low turn rate and high inertia means controlling your ship is a chore on a good day. And when you need to get your ship around (either for another pass or to change shield facings between your tac teams) it takes all of this week and most of the next. Which actually cuts down on survivability. You also have the lowest dodge rate, BY A TON!!! (yes, 10% is a lot).
Does it balance out? I don't think so personally. The disparity of maneuverability between even sci ships and cruisers is too much, to say nothing of cruisers and escorts. Yes, you gain a ton more hull, but in all honesty, as I stated on more than one occasion, with how skills are and with how burst is, believe it or not, 8k is actually not much at all, heck even 12k isn't that much. Also the more engi consoles? So what? At most you'll have maybe 10% more resistance than equivalent science ships and escorts. Which is a null point since those other two classes are more likely to dodge (there's where that 10% actually means something). In the end, cruisers just have no point anymore. Their healing ability is easily outdone by a science ship, and their tanking ability is only somewhat better than an escort. All they are really good at doing is taking hits. Which is where carriers outdo them. And carriers are actually more useful, since courtesy of their fighters, they can dps pretty hard.
Take what you will from this post lol...
Why must you insist upon shooting yourself in the foot so often? It makes me cringe every time I read posts like the one you just did.
You just negated your own argument with that post. Beam Array broadside builds are underpowered. That is far from true, but going with that, I will ask you, what are most federation cruisers limited to using as a result of weapon restrictions and their low turn rate and horrible inertia? Yeah, that's right, Beam Array broadside builds.
Sooo... yeah... -.-
P.S I added on distinction "federation cruisers" simply because the KDF Vor'cha Retrofit and Fleet Tor'Kaht Retrofit basically break the mold as KDF battlecruisers go.
Engineering consoles do not have diminishing returns. The way they work is counterintuitive, but each console adds just as much as the last one.
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
When you give a cruiser a turn rate of around 10 degrees a second, and give it an LTC tactical slot to play with, it stops being a passive slab of hull plating.
I accept this. It just annoys me a little since it seems that other consoles are more effective for much cheaper.
As I see it, the problem is two-fold:
a) Cryptic cannot seem to balance the Fed cruiser's main damage ability, FAW. It was once (intentionally? Unintentionally?) too strong so it's been nerfed to the point where it's too weak.
b) This is more a personal opinion coming from someone who likes fast or agile ships, but the Fed snoozer is penalized too hard through beam damage dropoff due to distance from their target(s). Ships that struggle to turn shouldn't be punished so hard, it's a kind of double-dipping.
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
FAW was indeed better once upon a time, but it has always been more akin to cannon scatter volley skill than the rapid cannon fire skill. I'm not sure what the best approach would be here.
Point B is where I believe we should focus more attention for beam arrays. The options to improve this could possibly be:
a) Eliminate range damage drop off entirely so the damage is always consistent.
b) Reduce the range damage drop off and also increase the damage as the target gets closer. This would give beams more punch.
c) Give beams more range so they have a longer engagement range.
d) Add an additional volley to the firing cycle to increase damage output.
Posters have also suggested heavy beam arrays for cruisers that would work more like heavy cannons giving more spike damage potential.
Given cruisers are supposed to have the best warp cores in the fleet give them more bonus to each subsystem and/or give them resistance to all energy drains (Building over time as per the Aegis set shield bonus) this would allow cruiser damage to build up during a longer fight (as per science ships) it could also help with the power chomping FAW, an extra +5 to all subsystems would improve their maneuverability, resistance, healing and damage.
Then for engineers buff their Nadion inversion as it really is weak by comparison to other captain skills.