Okay Cryptic, the Dread's turn rate demands that Fed cruiser turn rates be boosted.

fulleatherjacket

The Jem'Hadar Dreadnought flies and turns like an Exploration cruiser despite being wayyyyy bigger than "twice the size". The Dreadnought is nimble as hell for a carrier class ship.

All Fed cruisers need a turn rate boost of 1. No exceptions.

It should look like this:

Cruiser: 10
Advanced Heavy Cruiser: 9
Heavy Cruiser: 9
Star Cruiser: 8
Assault Cruiser: 8
Exploration Cruiser: 7


There is no reason not to do this when a frigging DREADNOUGHT that's practically the same size as an Imperial Star Destroyer can haul its TRIBBLE around like a Galaxy class cruiser.

centersolace

I noticed that. I'm beginning to wonder if the entire Cryptic staff hates cruiser captains.

diogene0

It's a game and sometimes realism is a secondary concern. Playability is far more important. If you want some RP justification no one ever said that the dominion didn't have better impulse engines.

stirling191

diogene0 wrote: »

It's a game and sometimes realism is a secondary concern. Playability is far more important.

That's not really making an argument against increasing Fed cruiser turn rates you know.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

atatassault

stirling191 wrote: »

That's not really making an argument against increasing Fed cruiser turn rates you know.

He's not arguing against your point of Fed Cruisers need to be nimbler; He's arguing against the notion the Dreadnaught turns too fast.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

atatassault

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~kalecto

latinumbar

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

This is one of the more fatuous responses I've seen on this forum. Realism isn't the issue, playability is. Most Fed cruisers have the agility of a paralysed manatee. I'm not asking for everyone else's playability to be ruined here, I'm asking for +1 turn rate.

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~kalecto

By your argument then, ALL other ships should have their turn rates increased, not just cruisers.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

atatassault

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~kalecto

Unknown

This content has been removed.

bitemepwe

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies. ~kalecto

What agenda did his post carry? That the dominion may have had better impulse engines?
I think his is not the only agenda being propogated in here.

And before you call me an escort lover ( for I have loved many in life) take a good look at the cruisers threads where I have supported a turn buff.

sekritagent

Gotta agree, I also noticed the dreadnought turns faster than the Vo'quv, even if 1 degree per second. I'm shocked that thing got a turn rate north of 3. There's nothing in canon (including the episode Valiant where an escort went up against it) that supports a turn rate like that.

Despite all that, basically there's two reasons this won't happen:

• Cryptic and PWE have repeatedly demonstrated they don't give a damn about canon, which is why non-Dominion crews are flying these ships in the first place. The canon argument doesn't hold much weight in a game where a Starfleet Admiral can go on sanctioned Starfleet missions using a starship of Jem'Hadar, Cardassian, Breen, Ferengi, Tholian, or Future manufacture (and let's not even get started on the Mirror Universe ships) any of which bear a Starfleet commission. These people would put in Cylon Basestars if players would open lock boxes for it.
• They want to sell lock boxes and Lobi -- this is likely their primary source of revenue now (note we're getting these roughly every quarter). Brandon was out yesterday in an pseudo-"community event" getting people to queue up for Fleet Actions where, you guessed it, there were Lock Boxes dropping. They're selling a ship and they want you to open the boxes at all costs. And I do mean ALL COSTS. To you, that is.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

neo1nx

YEAHHHHHH, go on cryptic, very good!!!
a ship MORE than twice the side of my gal x have the SAME turn rate.... yeah everything is good and logic in a perfect world.
and people said that i wanted a god ship when i suggest a 0.5 degree boost of the galaxy dreadnought base turn rate,but don't find anything wrong with the jem dreadnought.

nothing wrong with the breen ship also, everything is cool, we absolutly not favor some ship against another... what could i said

diogene0

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

This is one of the more fatuous responses I've seen on this forum. Realism isn't the issue, playability is. Most Fed cruisers have the agility of a paralysed manatee.

And they also have incredible tanking abilities. This carrier obviously doesn't. This could explain why the inertia/turnrate is higher. I know it's a major complaint from people flying cruisers, they want DPS, tanking and maneuvrability, which won't be added in this game for obvious reasons.

BTW the original complaint comes from the compared sized of ships.

bloctoad

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

Okay, try to follow this train of logic:

He said playability is the issue. I did not suggest nerfing the dreadnought, so its playability would remain the same with my idea. Don't tell me he's simply thick in the head, and that he assumed I wanted to nerf the dreadnought's playability when I said nothing of the sort.

So whose playability is diogene0 referring to? Cruiser captains? He wants cruisers to remain as they are, so it's unlikely that he's suggesting a slightly higher turn rate would make cruiser playability worse. That would be asinine.

What does that leave him with? Escorts and science ships. He is afraid that a boost to the playability of Cruisers will threaten either one or both. I know he flies a Vesta which is a science/escort hybrid, and I doubt he wants the viability of that threatened by anything.

And also, he seems to think all cruisers should be doing is healing teams in pvp and little else, because "that's their role". As if an increased turn rate would ruin that role or the roles of the other ship classes.

Oh, looky. He thinks the best Fed cruiser is the one with a turn rate of 10 that isn't Fed at all.



I already have seen those posts, Roach. I had no intention of besmirching you unfairly. I only do it fairly, to guys like diogene0.

Whatever agenda you attribute the "escort fanboy" your agenda is clearly that of raising the turn rate of cruisers. One must conclude you command a cruiser and in doing so are rather adamant regarding your agenda. Therefore, it is also safe to conclude you are a "cruiser fanboy" and your posts be viewed in such light. You continue to make such statements regarding other players while obfuscating your own proclivities.

bitemepwe

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

Okay, try to follow this train of logic:

He said playability is the issue. I did not suggest nerfing the dreadnought, so its playability would remain the same with my idea. Don't tell me he's simply thick in the head, and that he assumed I wanted to nerf the dreadnought's playability when I said nothing of the sort.

So whose playability is diogene0 referring to? Cruiser captains? He wants cruisers to remain as they are, so it's unlikely that he's suggesting a slightly higher turn rate would make cruiser playability worse. That would be asinine.

What does that leave him with? Escorts and science ships. He is afraid that a boost to the playability of Cruisers will threaten either one or both. I know he flies a Vesta which is a science/escort hybrido, and I doubt he wants the viability of that threatened by anything.

And also, he seems to think all cruisers should be doing is healing teams in pvp and little else, because "that's their role". As if an increased turn rate would ruin that role or the roles of the other ship classes.

Oh, looky. He thinks the best Fed cruiser is the one with a turn rate of 10 that isn't Fed at all.



I already have seen those posts, Roach. I had no intention of besmirching you unfairly. I only do it fairly, to guys like diogene0.

Im just saying his first post held none of the villiany that you attributed to it.
I know villiany, it had none.

As to playabilty, I agree. The Cruisers do need a buff to turm and enertia to make them more enjoyable. Among other things.
My point was not to attack you iether, just to point out what I saw as an injustice as others have done to me when I have acted so myself at times. Frankly, I often put the TRIBBLE on assume

sekritagent

Speculating on each other's nefarious motives does nothing to advance the conversation, guys.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

bloctoad

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

My agenda is to improve balance. His agenda is to maintain imbalance in his favour.

Conjecture.

whamhammer1

bloctoad wrote: »

Whatever agenda you attribute the "escort fanboy" your agenda is clearly that of raising the turn rate of cruisers. One must conclude you command a cruiser and in doing so are rather adamant regarding your agenda. Therefore, it is also safe to conclude you are a "cruiser fanboy" and your posts be viewed in such light. You continue to make such statements regarding other players while obfuscating your own proclivities.

Well, in his defense, it has been a little frustrating for Fed' cruiser captains to have their ships outmaneuvered out gunned(dps) and out-resisted (per point of hull) versus their typical opponent (KDF or Fed').

Unless a cruiser captain goes to the extremes, they pretty much only can rely on low damage Beam Arrays, single cannons and the sort to bounce off of enemy shields and hulls while hoping they can hold out with enough heals to bore their enemies to leaving them alone (usually ineffective).

bitemepwe

A buffed turn rate for cruisers, some more Tac BOff minded choices shipwise for both factions cruiserwise, a rebalnce of beam arrays so cruiser benefit from them as DHCs benefit escorts (science needs something though) and new BOff abilities would all be welcomed by me if, and only if, it keeps balance and the ideology of the respective factions in mind

whamhammer1

bitemepwe wrote: »

A buffed turn rate for cruisers, some more Tac BOff minded choices shipwise for both factions cruiserwise, a rebalnce of beam arrays so cruiser benefit from them as DHCs benefit escorts (science needs something though) and new BOff abilities would all be welcomed by me if, and only if, it keeps balance and the ideology of the respective factions in mind

Roach, we are in total agreement. I do still argue that the KDF should still have problems dispensing coffee while cloaked;):D

bitemepwe

whamhammer1 wrote: »

Well, in his defense, it has been a little frustrating for Fed' cruiser captains to have their ships outmaneuvered out gunned(dps) and out-resisted (per point of hull) versus their typical opponent (KDF or Fed').

Unless a cruiser captain goes to the extremes, they pretty much only can rely on low damage Beam Arrays, single cannons and the sort to bounce off of enemy shields and hulls while hoping they can hold out with enough heals to bore their enemies to leaving them alone (usually ineffective).

Ive always seen that experience as more of alacking of choices on beam related BOff abilities.

diogene0

fulleatherjacket wrote: »

Okay, try to follow this train of logic:

He said playability is the issue. I did not suggest nerfing the dreadnought, so its playability would remain the same with my idea. Don't tell me he's simply thick in the head, and that he assumed I wanted to nerf the dreadnought's playability when I said nothing of the sort.

So whose playability is diogene0 referring to? Cruiser captains? He wants cruisers to remain as they are, so it's unlikely that he's suggesting a slightly higher turn rate would make cruiser playability worse. That would be asinine.

What does that leave him with? Escorts and science ships. He is afraid that a boost to the playability of Cruisers will threaten either one or both. I know he flies a Vesta which is a science/escort hybrid, and I doubt he wants the viability of that threatened by anything.

And also, he seems to think all cruisers should be doing is healing teams in pvp and little else, because "that's their role". As if an increased turn rate would ruin that role or the roles of the other ship classes.

Oh, looky. He thinks the best Fed cruiser is the one with a turn rate of 10 that isn't Fed at all.



I already have seen those posts, Roach. I had no intention of besmirching you unfairly. I only do it fairly, to guys like diogene0.

FYI I enjoy flying all ships, even those with a turnrate of 6 like my former Recluse. This was one of the best ships i'veever played with. In no way i feel "threatened" by cruiser pilots I'm just tired to see people complaining that the game isn't balanced when it's just a lack of piloting skills.

I mean, i'm not better than anyone here, and if i can do it well, anyone can.

bitemepwe

whamhammer1 wrote: »

Roach, we are in total agreement. I do still argue that the KDF should still have problems dispensing coffee while cloaked;):D

I still do, but a upcomming franchise buyin with Starbucks may solve it for us.

whamhammer1

bitemepwe wrote: »

Ive always seen that experience as more of alacking of choices on beam related BOff abilities.

Can you break that down a bit? I can see two directions you could be going, but I'm not sure which one it is?