If you're going to call canon into account here, let me remind you that if we paid any attention to canon or ship movement rules, the entire fed fleet would move like escorts, the GalX included.
The Klingons.... well actually the klingons wouldn't really experience much of a change.
It doesn't have much to do with canon for me, if this game was cannon, only true Trekkies would play it. On that note, i'd play it cuz I could live in it and be awesome! It's more of stating that the dread is something different, iPhone 5 vs Galaxy s3. Both are phone, yet both are made differently.
Why do people even bother posting threads asking for playability of ships to be improved? They all seem to end with everyone having a go at one another...
As I read this it was not an attempt to take anything away from anyone but to make a point about what is likely the biggest ship in the game turning as fast as something far lighter...
Hm... But humans are aggressive and combatant by nature, so you could say the internet is the truest form of humanity.
oh please, fed cruisers turning 2 better does nothing to the kdf and takes nothing away from them. once they all have 10 or beter turn rate and can use DHCs then we can talk about the kdf losing something unique.
of course the bortas, being a fed cruiser clone more then anything, should get the same bump in turn
Let's see... +2 turn rate to all fed cruisers... Ok, let's go over your average end-game cruisers and compare them to their KDF variants.
SC/FSCR, AC/ACR/FACR: current turn = 7, with buff = 9
HCR/FHCR, Excel/FExcel (pukes quietly in a corner): current turn = 8, with buff = 10
Gal-R/FGal-R/Gal-x, Odyssey/allthebloodyvariants: current turn = 6, with buff = 8
So with that in mind, the highest turning cruiser you would have would be a base of 10. Now let's look at the KDF.
Negh'var/F-Negh'var: base turn = 9
MVor'cha/Vor'cha R/FVor'cha-R: base turn = 10
K't'inga/F-K't'inga: base turn = 11
Bortas/Bortasqu'/allthebloodyvariants: base turn = *BLEH*
So from what I can see, you'd bring fed cruisers to about equal with that buff. However something else to consider: inertia. Fed cruisers would still lose out on inertia ratings. Minutia say you, important says I. However KDF battlecruisers would still be able to cloak, use DHCs, and be awesome. And the equivalent ships (Vor'cha to AC/SC, Neg'vhar to Gal-R, K't'inga to Excel) are still inferior. See below:
Never gunna happen stick to beam arrays that way turn doesn't matter
Leave the true battling to the empire
Stick to hazard emitters and extend shields
----=====This is my opinion you don't have to listen and no one else has to read them these "OPINIONS" are based on my exploits and my learning other people will have their opinions and that's fine just don't knock my way of doing things thanks=====---- :cool:
Not only +1 or +2, it should be +6. I don't care whether it is revision 1,2,3, or 4 of Galaxy class and I have to pay for it. Stick to the same design model with slight cosmetic change and it shall sell well. It is just me who wants a beam ship. It is a good opportunity to sell special beam array too. I play pve exclusively and don't care about pvp.
oh please, fed cruisers turning 2 better does nothing to the kdf and takes nothing away from them. once they all have 10 or beter turn rate and can use DHCs then we can talk about the kdf losing something unique.
of course the bortas, being a fed cruiser clone more then anything, should get the same bump in turn
Indeed. I also support your +2 turn rate proposal.
That's my point... this thread is nothing more than another attempt to take away any uniqueness of the KDF... FED's already took cloaks and carriers... now they want to eliminate the slight maneuverability bonus of the KDF battlecruisers too!
>took away cloaks
>Fed has cloak on two ships
Suuuuuure.
But okay, let's play it with your logic.
WAAAAAAH, KLINGONS ARE STEALING OUR UNIQUENESS, THEY HAVE SHIPS WITHOUT CLOAKING DEVICES WAAAAAAAH!
Let's see... +2 turn rate to all fed cruisers... Ok, let's go over your average end-game cruisers and compare them to their KDF variants.
SC/FSCR, AC/ACR/FACR: current turn = 7, with buff = 9
HCR/FHCR, Excel/FExcel (pukes quietly in a corner): current turn = 8, with buff = 10
Gal-R/FGal-R/Gal-x, Odyssey/allthebloodyvariants: current turn = 6, with buff = 8
So with that in mind, the highest turning cruiser you would have would be a base of 10. Now let's look at the KDF.
Negh'var/F-Negh'var: base turn = 9
MVor'cha/Vor'cha R/FVor'cha-R: base turn = 10
K't'inga/F-K't'inga: base turn = 11
Bortas/Bortasqu'/allthebloodyvariants: base turn = *BLEH*
So from what I can see, you'd bring fed cruisers to about equal with that buff. However something else to consider: inertia. Fed cruisers would still lose out on inertia ratings. Minutia say you, important says I. However KDF battlecruisers would still be able to cloak, use DHCs, and be awesome. And the equivalent ships (Vor'cha to AC/SC, Neg'vhar to Gal-R, K't'inga to Excel) are still inferior. See below:
So DDIS is right (again), and doing this would still leave KDF battlecruisers as superior, and not really harm the KDF dominance in combat ability.
even if i am for a +2 turn for fed cruiser, i do bielieve that kdf cruiser should get a +1 too because the gap between federation and kdf would be reduce too much.
i am not ok with the concept that 1 faction should have unjustify buff over an other just to make it appealing ( look at starcraft , 3 faction, there is not one better than an other, just different playstyle), however in this case it seem justify to me.
this is star trek, and federation cruiser aren't meant for war ( they are exeption, but that just what they are, exeption ), the kdf is.
so it seem perfectly normal to me that their ship get some boost in what is the purpose of this faction, make war.
the problem is that fed cruiser have been somehow "nerfed" too much concerning their turn rate and that the difference, until today, between fed cruiser and kdf cruiser is too pronounce and even when we don't compared to kdf cruiser, the fed turn rate simply suck.
the gap should be reduce but not too much, leaving just 1 base turn rate more for kdf is not a good idea in my opinion, even if their inertia is better.
the inertia of certain fed cruiser should be rework as well anyway...
i bielieve that a big revamp is neccesary, just giving +2 to all cruiser wouldn't solve some nonsense ( like a dread jem hadar turning as good as a galaxy class with an inertia 3 time better too)
but that may be too much too ask...
beams need a CRF/CSV like BOff ability choice between ensign and LTC.
as well as a revamp of thier drain mechanic.
So basically what you are suggesting is new Lt.-up boff abilities for beams.
A CRF like one that would essentially double the tare of beam fire?
A CSV like ability similar to FAW but only in a 90-ish degree arc of the main target.
Would that be correct? If so, it sounds good. The only concern I can think of would be energy drain, especially on a broadside. If they could cap the drain at 150% of standard firing beam arrays, that would be interesting. Can you expand on this?
On the other hand, what would stop them from designing a cannon ability like Beam Overload for cannons? One shot of a DHC, especially with Tactical buffs, might take the place of Tricobalt weapons for sure.
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.
It makes sense that the turn rates would be as such, since with the Fed's cruisers the bulk of the mass is concentrated mid/front whereas with the "drearrier" the mass is concentrated mid/rear closer to the engines, thus the weight is more easily manipulated.
It would be an interesting concept if turn rate and inertia were dictated by how you customized the look of your ship.
But ultimately that would be alot of coding, and it would probably grow silly to see the majority of ships in compact themes, as there would be no benefit to having an extended size ship. Maybe if there were some sort of tanking bonus in exchange it could be a novel ideal.
After reading all this thread i'd just advise to cruiser captains to switch to an escort if they want to DPS stuff and turn like mad (why not?), or to find a random solo game if they think STO isn't meant to be played by teams.
Or to roll a tac if they don't like to play a support role because it's not "glorious enough" to help others instead of being the DPS hero, which is, i assume, the exclusive and only issue here. Plain and simple ego troubles. :P
After reading all this thread i'd just advise to cruiser captains to switch to an escort if they want to DPS stuff and turn like mad (why not?), or to find a random solo game if they think STO isn't meant to be played by teams.
Or to roll a tac if they don't like to play a support role because it's not "glorious enough" to help others instead of being the DPS hero, which is, i assume, the exclusive and only issue here. Plain and simple ego troubles. :P
It is kind of funny how few cruiser captains are willing to play support craft and beg for the DPC capability of escorts isn't it...
Tbh, I agree though. You want massive damage output, re-roll a tacscort. I can guarantee you will not drop things as fast as a tac in a fleet defiant/bug in ANYTHING else (anything being any other career/ship). There is a reason I advise all of my friends who join the game to roll a tac. They say "ooh, engi/sci looks cool!". I tell them plain and simple that this game is almost exclusively damage based (at least end-game PvE is) and they either laugh and go play another game, or reluctantly roll a tac, and thank me later (later being after they've had some real combat under their belts i.e. ESTFs).
Here's something plain and simple. Cruisers are support craft. They are designed to lay down cover fire and constant damage. And I don't care how weak your BAs are, you can still at least negate shield recharge of a target. Those SUPPORT CRAFT are also good for healing, and being a meat-wall. Now if this game had a taunt of some kind that worked in players (TC for NPCs, only a player version) that made it so tanks would be viable again in ALL aspects of the game. Here's the post: BLARG!!!!!
But as I have stated zillions of times, I still would propose the return of the 20% damage lost on beams in the BFAW disco nerf, and a slight accuracy bonus. Nothing more. That might make cruiser pilots feel like they're doing a little bit more. Oh wells.
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.
After reading all this thread i'd just advise to cruiser captains to switch to an escort if they want to DPS stuff and turn like mad (why not?), or to find a random solo game if they think STO isn't meant to be played by teams.
Or to roll a tac if they don't like to play a support role because it's not "glorious enough" to help others instead of being the DPS hero, which is, i assume, the exclusive and only issue here. Plain and simple ego troubles. :P
I guess, It's more about the fact that in PvE, you do not need support role, as its dps fest..so people feel useless, unless they do dmg. And if you regularly pvp and pve, and check the composition of your team, you will already see its 4/5 tacs, 4/5 escorts.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
I would trade turn rate for more hull. The idea of space exploration in a pinata is an eternal fail. Let the KDF flail madly at a impulse driven FED anvil. How about 50% increase in hull instead of +2 turn rate?
I wonder if all those people who say cruisers should only be support ships know how blatantly self-serving they sound, and how obvious it is they don't play cruisers.
It is exclusive and elitist to say "You shouldn't be able to do what I do, you should exist only to serve me by taking threat or healing me." Especially while at the same time utterly devaluing tanking and support by the simple and obvious fact that you don't do it.
(I fly a Vesta right now, Recluse before that, and a Chimera before that.)
That's my point... this thread is nothing more than another attempt to take away any uniqueness of the KDF... FED's already took cloaks and carriers... now they want to eliminate the slight maneuverability bonus of the KDF battlecruisers too!
You realize this sounds a lot like the arguments against same-sex marriage, against interracial marriages, against women's suffrage, against outlawing segregation, against women's rights...
I guess, It's more about the fact that in PvE, you do not need support role, as its dps fest..so people feel useless, unless they do dmg. And if you regularly pvp and pve, and check the composition of your team, you will already see its 4/5 tacs, 4/5 escorts.
Because all the current PvE endgame queues are easy, and because supporting your team members in some fleet actions such as starbase 24 won't be rewarding at all. But in the newest instances, such as Hive onslaught, the tholian red alert, or even in a no win scenario, one good and competent healer in your team is a gift from the gods.
I just hope that season 8 will give us more opportunities to bring more support ships into the battle.
I wonder if all those people who say cruisers should only be support ships know how blatantly self-serving they sound, and how obvious it is they don't play cruisers.
It is exclusive and elitist to say "You shouldn't be able to do what I do, you should exist only to serve me by taking threat or healing me." Especially while at the same time utterly devaluing tanking and support by the simple and obvious fact that you don't do it.
(I fly a Vesta right now, Recluse before that, and a Chimera before that.)
While I agree with you, there should be limitations of each class to keep them unique. Even though there should be more potent cruisers, there should also be cruiser designs that should be only for support ships (for those who do want/enjoy a support heavy role).
You realize this sounds a lot like the arguments against same-sex marriage, against interracial marriages, against women's suffrage, against outlawing segregation, against women's rights...
I really don't see how you could take that much of a stretch on political terms from that statement. It sounds like you would be saying that historians and game designers would be discriminatory if they kept the "quantity vs. quality" issues between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in stories and games. The guys is talking about unique core competencies that distinguish the KDF ships from the Fed's ships. KDF ships give up certain things to get their advantages. While they might not be as equitable as some of want, it adds a flavor that keeps up from having both factions fighting each other in exactly the same ships as their opponents.
Because all the current PvE endgame queues are easy, and because supporting your team members in some fleet actions such as starbase 24 won't be rewarding at all. But in the newest instances, such as Hive onslaught, the tholian red alert, or even in a no win scenario, one good and competent healer in your team is a gift from the gods.
I just hope that season 8 will give us more opportunities to bring more support ships into the battle.
It may be a gift from the gods, but much of the time its almost a death sentence for the healer/cruiser especially if the other players can't (or won't) protect the cruiser when the enemy decided to focus on the cruiser. The cruisers weapons bounce off of the escorts and shy of a miracle, the cruiser has no chance to evade. There's no real deterrent to attacking the cruiser of a group; they take more damage per shot, use up all of their heals and tend to not be able to fight off the attackers and when it is down it cant heal/support its friendlies. A team would be a fool not to victimize cruisers first.
Cruisers need some "real" from of a deterrent to enemy escorts.
While I agree with you, there should be limitations of each class to keep them unique. Even though there should be more potent cruisers, there should also be cruiser designs that should be only for support ships (for those who do want/enjoy a support heavy role).
Agreed. However the current damage discrepancy appears to be far too high. The difference between an average cruiser dealing 4k DPS and an average escort dealing 6k DPS in a quick 5 minute STF is 600,000 damage.
At the same time, the survival difference is not that great - it doesn't matter that you have 1000% more hull and shields if you only ever drop to 90% shields/hull and neither types of ships die.
I really don't see how you could take that much of a stretch on political terms from that statement. It sounds like you would be saying that historians and game designers would be discriminatory if they kept the "quantity vs. quality" issues between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in stories and games. The guys is talking about unique core competencies that distinguish the KDF ships from the Fed's ships. KDF ships give up certain things to get their advantages. While they might not be as equitable as some of want, it adds a flavor that keeps up from having both factions fighting each other in exactly the same ships as their opponents.
You misunderstood. My point is the stance of "I have X, and you shouldn't have it in spite of that fact that it does not affect my possession of X in any way" bears striking familiarities to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments that it would somehow devalue their marriage because other people want to be married.
It is also NOT a "core competency", but simply an imbalance that exists. Whatever balance may exist is not defined by 1 turn rate. They still have cloaks, they still have universal BOff slots. It is an extremely minor difference to the KDF but a huge difference to quality of life for Fed cruiser pilots. The KDF fanatics have a hair-trigger prosecution complex against any possible improvements for Feds because the KDF lack content.
If the KDF had as much content as the Feds, nobody would rant about being robbed of their uniqueness if Fed bricks became slightly faster bricks.
The entire bigger = slower is total bogus in space anyway.
All that matters is the trust/mass ratio of the ship. If that is the same, the ship will move the same, no matter how big or small.
And lets face it, most cruisers are simple rather boring to fly, because they move so slow in comparison to escorts or even sci ships.
I think all turn rates need a balance pass, something like this:
Agreed. However the current damage discrepancy appears to be far too high. The difference between an average cruiser dealing 4k DPS and an average escort dealing 6k DPS in a quick 5 minute STF is 600,000 damage.
At the same time, the survival difference is not that great - it doesn't matter that you have 1000% more hull and shields if you only ever drop to 90% shields/hull and neither types of ships die.
Let me add my to the story a bit. My Fleet Excel has been averaging 6k during KASE recently, which anyone would probably agree is pretty good for a cruiser, and I have been sparring with a guy with a Fleet Defiant that does about 10k. Unless I tractor him, I literally cannot knock his shields down, and damage I do is via bleed-through. He was watching his combat log and even noticed that his ships resistances actually soaked all of my Advanced Fleet Phaser Turrets damage.
You misunderstood. My point is the stance of "I have X, and you shouldn't have it in spite of that fact that it does not affect my possession of X in any way" bears striking familiarities to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments that it would somehow devalue their marriage because other people want to be married.
I'm not going to delve in this issue, its way to far of a hot issue/time bomb waiting to go off and if it does people aren't going to be happy. All I am going to say is that the relation you have pointed is too far of an extreme and one that is almost dropped in as minefield which will beg to get the thread locked down if it is discussed.
It is also NOT a "core competency", but simply an imbalance that exists. Whatever balance may exist is not defined by 1 turn rate. They still have cloaks, they still have universal BOff slots. It is an extremely minor difference to the KDF but a huge difference to quality of life for Fed cruiser pilots. The KDF fanatics have a hair-trigger prosecution complex against any possible improvements for Feds because the KDF lack content.
If the KDF had as much content as the Feds, nobody would rant about being robbed of their uniqueness if Fed bricks became slightly faster bricks.
The very definition of a core competency suggests that its an imbalance, of course its an imbalance. Remember, the KDF ships have less hull and shield ratings than their Fed' counterparts as well they pay a price for that imbalance with an imbalance that benefits the Fed's.
Mind you, I am big-time majority Fed' player saying this. It's not the +1 turn rate that most of the KDF players are worried about, they see all of the things that made KDF ships what they are being whittled away and yes, they are frustrated with the content issues. Most of the consoles being swapped between factions do benefit the KDF much less (if at all) than benefits the Fed's. I agree with their points to an extent.
As far as uni consoles, the main ship that has the uni's is the BOP other than that, they are pretty much the same as the Fed ships in numbers.
You misunderstood. My point is the stance of "I have X, and you shouldn't have it in spite of that fact that it does not affect my possession of X in any way" bears striking familiarities to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments that it would somehow devalue their marriage because other people want to be married.
It is also NOT a "core competency", but simply an imbalance that exists. Whatever balance may exist is not defined by 1 turn rate. They still have cloaks, they still have universal BOff slots. It is an extremely minor difference to the KDF but a huge difference to quality of life for Fed cruiser pilots. The KDF fanatics have a hair-trigger prosecution complex against any possible improvements for Feds because the KDF lack content.
If the KDF had as much content as the Feds, nobody would rant about being robbed of their uniqueness if Fed bricks became slightly faster bricks.
you, buddy, you are someone! i have to remember your name!
+1 with all what you said in the quote!
The entire bigger = slower is total bogus in space anyway.
All that matters is the trust/mass ratio of the ship. If that is the same, the ship will move the same, no matter how big or small.
It's not bogus. I can see where somebody would say it's bogus. For the most part, the majority of us whether we took a couple of Physics courses before or in college - well, most of us would never touch upon everything that's actually involved. We pretty much just moved little cubes, balls, and the like (solid, mind you) through imaginary vacuums as we did our homework or took tests, etc, etc, etc.
Where to start?
A straight line. From X to Y. A larger mass will require more force to move from X to Y. Bam, right from the start we've introduced a limitation based on reasonable engine size. It may not be reasonable to have the size engine we need to place on the larger ship so it can go from X to Y as fast as a smaller ship. So we're more than likely going to be slower. That aspect would have been covered - minus the size of the engine - in discussing the amount of force needed.
Likewise, that larger vessel is going to have greater momentum. It will take a greater force to slow and stop that larger vessel. So, we don't want it to go too fast - or we wouldn't be able to stop it. Again, the reasonable engine size should come to mind.
But it's not a 2D plane. We're not just moving from X to Y. We're looking at vector forces being applied to move through a 3D system. So we need to look at the potential application of force in a manner that accounts for that. Again, this is going to limit us.
So that's all great and everything, but the real fun begins when you consider that we're not dealing with solid masses. Every see a TV show, movie, or even commercial where they show an impact...and...the car getting crushed - collapsing, etc, etc, etc?
Structural integrity/design will matter as we consider applying those forces. Moving from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1) is not the same as moving from (0,0,0) to (0,1,0). The vessel needs to withstand the force moving it in any number of directions without crumpling. Sure, on larger vessels we could reinforce the structure...but then we're adding mass...we'll need more force...and we'll need to reinforce the structure...but then we're adding mass...oh wait. Yeah, so it's another limiting factor.
So no, it's not bogus in the least. There are a multitude of reasons why a larger ship is going to be move slower, turn slower, accelerate slower, decelerate slower, etc, etc, etc...
That's all before considering that there are people on the vessel, eh? Those Inertial Dampeners can only stave off so much Star Trek Shake.
Agreed. However the current damage discrepancy appears to be far too high. The difference between an average cruiser dealing 4k DPS and an average escort dealing 6k DPS in a quick 5 minute STF is 600,000 damage.
the difference is bigger than what you said actually.
i am doing 5.5K damage with my focus beam setup on my galaxy x.
one of my fleetmate in a bug doing 8k in focus setup, this number go to 12k when he use multi target setup.
ACT recorded him doing 18k damage once.
this guy and an other of my fleet have finish CSE with only the 2 of them with optional( 2 escort ).
here the proof: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=407821
so yeah escort power, when properly configured is way beyong cruiser
not that i care, some cruiser are capable to reduce the gap already, but some so called tactical cruiser ( yes gal x, i am looking at you!) are limited too much by their BO layout.
i am sure that with a good one, he can reach 7 and maybe 8K, and that would be more than sufficient.
Sufficient for ISE?
Sufficient for HOSE?
Sufficient for NWS?
Actually sufficient or efficient sufficient? Sufficient to do it in X amount of time - the required time...or...sufficient to do it in Y amount of time - the time certain players want it to be completed?
I think the thing about the trinity system is that the "tank" and "dps" are balanced by toughness and fragility.
On an individual basis, the glass cannon should deal a lot of damage but also should die or be forced to retreat a lot. Over the course of an encounter, his damage graph will go up and down a lot. The tank doesn't deal a lot of damage, but doesn't die or need to retreat. Over the course of an encounter, his damage graph is a fairly steady line. Over the course of an encounter, both types should deal roughly the same amount of damage. For example, half the time the glass cannon is dealing double the damage of the tank, but the other half the time he's dealing 0 damage.
On a team basis, when they team up properly the damage becomes greater than the sum of their parts - the glass cannon suddenly loses the valleys in his damage graph, and together they deal triple their damage rather than double.
I believe that is how it's supposed to work. How it's implemented in STO is that the glass cannons don't really need to retreat, or die, which severely skews the trinity's balance.
Not to be a wet blanket... but... really... +1 turn? Hell, give every ship +1 turn, who cares?
If you can't fly your big ship, +1 turn isn't going to help you... If you aren't happy turning slowly, don't fly a big ship...
And realy, because the dread carrier gets a turn 6 Fed cruisers need a turn rate buff? Did I miss the memo where suddenly turn 6 was desireable? Turn 6 is still dreadful, pardon the pun.
People need to learn how to fly this ships as they are before screaming for buffs and nerfs. So many people out there simply cannot fly, and try to blame their failings on the design of the ship. Yes, there are a few less then desireable ships, but most ships are quite capable, it is their pilots that are lacking.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Sufficient for ISE?
Sufficient for HOSE?
Sufficient for NWS?
Actually sufficient or efficient sufficient? Sufficient to do it in X amount of time - the required time...or...sufficient to do it in Y amount of time - the time certain players want it to be completed?
And well, that's just PvE...
well it is not a secret that my level in english is not what i wich it to be:) but i don't anderstand what " quirky and murky line" mean.
nethertheless, i will explain to you what sufficient, here, for me, mean.
it is not about the time it take, or the type of stf, or anything related to pve, i don't build my ship to do pve, but pvp.
it about the ship, sufficient here would translate in what a tactical oriented cruiser should be able to reach when properly configured.
i am sure some exelsior, regent, dkora are already able to achieve this with a tact toon.
the galaxy x isn't, wich is a nonsense dut to it more tactical oriented design ( cloack, lance, abilitie to mount dual canon ).
the problem is that we don't have the possibility to have a decent cannon build in this ship, and before you ask, a decent canon build is at least 2 rapid fire1 ( or 2CSV1 for pve, if some want to only do pve ).
many guy here speak about enhancing the beam and all sort of things, i found their idea very good, but i simply don't bielieve cryptic will ever change their system.
so, for sure, the best way,is to go with the current system, and to do more damage, you need cannon, plain and simple.
and that not going the easy way either, because having a cannon build in a 6base turnate ship....well, you known.
i hope that help clear it up.
There is no size. Size has nothing to do with it. Okay, it has something to do with where you position the force - but not the overall amount of force.
Put a balloon and a soda can on the desk in front of you. Blow on the balloon. Blow on the can. Which one moves? But the balloon's bigger! It's not size.
While the Dread Bug might be more massive than the Galaxy Dread - that doesn't mean it has more mass.
Now, if somebody wanted to talk about silliness and turn rate - they'd look at Escorts/Raptors/BoPs... and say they turn too fast. That all the crew should be strapped into their seats with barf bags handy and everything else had either be bolted down, using some kind of industrial magnets, or at the very least a healthy dose of duct tape. Now that's where I'd go, if I were going to talk about issues with turn in the game - Escort sized ships turning better than fighters could before their pilots would blackout. Yep, that's where I'd plan my attack on some of the silliness of turn in the game...not that cruisers need to turn faster, but rather that escorts need to turn slower.
Not to be rude but ships do have artificial gravity along with inertial dampeners to keep crew from sufering ill effects from maneuvers at high speed and warp jumps.
Comments
It doesn't have much to do with canon for me, if this game was cannon, only true Trekkies would play it. On that note, i'd play it cuz I could live in it and be awesome!
Hm... But humans are aggressive and combatant by nature, so you could say the internet is the truest form of humanity.
Yes, I am right, and yes, everyone is wrong, myself included. :P But a wonderful description nonetheless.
Let's see... +2 turn rate to all fed cruisers... Ok, let's go over your average end-game cruisers and compare them to their KDF variants.
SC/FSCR, AC/ACR/FACR: current turn = 7, with buff = 9
HCR/FHCR, Excel/FExcel (pukes quietly in a corner): current turn = 8, with buff = 10
Gal-R/FGal-R/Gal-x, Odyssey/allthebloodyvariants: current turn = 6, with buff = 8
So with that in mind, the highest turning cruiser you would have would be a base of 10. Now let's look at the KDF.
Negh'var/F-Negh'var: base turn = 9
MVor'cha/Vor'cha R/FVor'cha-R: base turn = 10
K't'inga/F-K't'inga: base turn = 11
Bortas/Bortasqu'/allthebloodyvariants: base turn = *BLEH*
So from what I can see, you'd bring fed cruisers to about equal with that buff. However something else to consider: inertia. Fed cruisers would still lose out on inertia ratings. Minutia say you, important says I. However KDF battlecruisers would still be able to cloak, use DHCs, and be awesome. And the equivalent ships (Vor'cha to AC/SC, Neg'vhar to Gal-R, K't'inga to Excel) are still inferior. See below:
Vor'cha-R: 10, AC/SC: 9
Negh'var: 9, Gal-R/Gal-X: 8
K't'inga: 11, Excel/HCR: 10
So DDIS is right (again), and doing this would still leave KDF battlecruisers as superior, and not really harm the KDF dominance in combat ability.
Leave the true battling to the empire
Stick to hazard emitters and extend shields
Indeed. I also support your +2 turn rate proposal.
>took away cloaks
>Fed has cloak on two ships
Suuuuuure.
But okay, let's play it with your logic.
WAAAAAAH, KLINGONS ARE STEALING OUR UNIQUENESS, THEY HAVE SHIPS WITHOUT CLOAKING DEVICES WAAAAAAAH!
even if i am for a +2 turn for fed cruiser, i do bielieve that kdf cruiser should get a +1 too because the gap between federation and kdf would be reduce too much.
i am not ok with the concept that 1 faction should have unjustify buff over an other just to make it appealing ( look at starcraft , 3 faction, there is not one better than an other, just different playstyle), however in this case it seem justify to me.
this is star trek, and federation cruiser aren't meant for war ( they are exeption, but that just what they are, exeption ), the kdf is.
so it seem perfectly normal to me that their ship get some boost in what is the purpose of this faction, make war.
the problem is that fed cruiser have been somehow "nerfed" too much concerning their turn rate and that the difference, until today, between fed cruiser and kdf cruiser is too pronounce and even when we don't compared to kdf cruiser, the fed turn rate simply suck.
the gap should be reduce but not too much, leaving just 1 base turn rate more for kdf is not a good idea in my opinion, even if their inertia is better.
the inertia of certain fed cruiser should be rework as well anyway...
i bielieve that a big revamp is neccesary, just giving +2 to all cruiser wouldn't solve some nonsense ( like a dread jem hadar turning as good as a galaxy class with an inertia 3 time better too)
but that may be too much too ask...
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
So basically what you are suggesting is new Lt.-up boff abilities for beams.
A CRF like one that would essentially double the tare of beam fire?
A CSV like ability similar to FAW but only in a 90-ish degree arc of the main target.
Would that be correct? If so, it sounds good. The only concern I can think of would be energy drain, especially on a broadside. If they could cap the drain at 150% of standard firing beam arrays, that would be interesting. Can you expand on this?
On the other hand, what would stop them from designing a cannon ability like Beam Overload for cannons? One shot of a DHC, especially with Tactical buffs, might take the place of Tricobalt weapons for sure.
i wouldnt mind a cylon basestar...
It would be an interesting concept if turn rate and inertia were dictated by how you customized the look of your ship.
But ultimately that would be alot of coding, and it would probably grow silly to see the majority of ships in compact themes, as there would be no benefit to having an extended size ship. Maybe if there were some sort of tanking bonus in exchange it could be a novel ideal.
Or to roll a tac if they don't like to play a support role because it's not "glorious enough" to help others instead of being the DPS hero, which is, i assume, the exclusive and only issue here. Plain and simple ego troubles. :P
God, lvl 60 CW. 17k.
It is kind of funny how few cruiser captains are willing to play support craft and beg for the DPC capability of escorts isn't it...
Tbh, I agree though. You want massive damage output, re-roll a tacscort. I can guarantee you will not drop things as fast as a tac in a fleet defiant/bug in ANYTHING else (anything being any other career/ship). There is a reason I advise all of my friends who join the game to roll a tac. They say "ooh, engi/sci looks cool!". I tell them plain and simple that this game is almost exclusively damage based (at least end-game PvE is) and they either laugh and go play another game, or reluctantly roll a tac, and thank me later (later being after they've had some real combat under their belts i.e. ESTFs).
Here's something plain and simple. Cruisers are support craft. They are designed to lay down cover fire and constant damage. And I don't care how weak your BAs are, you can still at least negate shield recharge of a target. Those SUPPORT CRAFT are also good for healing, and being a meat-wall. Now if this game had a taunt of some kind that worked in players (TC for NPCs, only a player version) that made it so tanks would be viable again in ALL aspects of the game. Here's the post: BLARG!!!!!
But as I have stated zillions of times, I still would propose the return of the 20% damage lost on beams in the BFAW disco nerf, and a slight accuracy bonus. Nothing more. That might make cruiser pilots feel like they're doing a little bit more. Oh wells.
I guess, It's more about the fact that in PvE, you do not need support role, as its dps fest..so people feel useless, unless they do dmg. And if you regularly pvp and pve, and check the composition of your team, you will already see its 4/5 tacs, 4/5 escorts.
It is exclusive and elitist to say "You shouldn't be able to do what I do, you should exist only to serve me by taking threat or healing me." Especially while at the same time utterly devaluing tanking and support by the simple and obvious fact that you don't do it.
(I fly a Vesta right now, Recluse before that, and a Chimera before that.)
You realize this sounds a lot like the arguments against same-sex marriage, against interracial marriages, against women's suffrage, against outlawing segregation, against women's rights...
Because all the current PvE endgame queues are easy, and because supporting your team members in some fleet actions such as starbase 24 won't be rewarding at all. But in the newest instances, such as Hive onslaught, the tholian red alert, or even in a no win scenario, one good and competent healer in your team is a gift from the gods.
I just hope that season 8 will give us more opportunities to bring more support ships into the battle.
God, lvl 60 CW. 17k.
While I agree with you, there should be limitations of each class to keep them unique. Even though there should be more potent cruisers, there should also be cruiser designs that should be only for support ships (for those who do want/enjoy a support heavy role).
I really don't see how you could take that much of a stretch on political terms from that statement. It sounds like you would be saying that historians and game designers would be discriminatory if they kept the "quantity vs. quality" issues between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in stories and games. The guys is talking about unique core competencies that distinguish the KDF ships from the Fed's ships. KDF ships give up certain things to get their advantages. While they might not be as equitable as some of want, it adds a flavor that keeps up from having both factions fighting each other in exactly the same ships as their opponents.
It may be a gift from the gods, but much of the time its almost a death sentence for the healer/cruiser especially if the other players can't (or won't) protect the cruiser when the enemy decided to focus on the cruiser. The cruisers weapons bounce off of the escorts and shy of a miracle, the cruiser has no chance to evade. There's no real deterrent to attacking the cruiser of a group; they take more damage per shot, use up all of their heals and tend to not be able to fight off the attackers and when it is down it cant heal/support its friendlies. A team would be a fool not to victimize cruisers first.
Cruisers need some "real" from of a deterrent to enemy escorts.
At the same time, the survival difference is not that great - it doesn't matter that you have 1000% more hull and shields if you only ever drop to 90% shields/hull and neither types of ships die.
You misunderstood. My point is the stance of "I have X, and you shouldn't have it in spite of that fact that it does not affect my possession of X in any way" bears striking familiarities to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments that it would somehow devalue their marriage because other people want to be married.
It is also NOT a "core competency", but simply an imbalance that exists. Whatever balance may exist is not defined by 1 turn rate. They still have cloaks, they still have universal BOff slots. It is an extremely minor difference to the KDF but a huge difference to quality of life for Fed cruiser pilots. The KDF fanatics have a hair-trigger prosecution complex against any possible improvements for Feds because the KDF lack content.
If the KDF had as much content as the Feds, nobody would rant about being robbed of their uniqueness if Fed bricks became slightly faster bricks.
All that matters is the trust/mass ratio of the ship. If that is the same, the ship will move the same, no matter how big or small.
And lets face it, most cruisers are simple rather boring to fly, because they move so slow in comparison to escorts or even sci ships.
I think all turn rates need a balance pass, something like this:
carrier +2
fed cruiser +2
kdf battlecruiser +1
destroyer +-0
sci ships +-0
escorts/raider <15 +-0
escorts/raider >15 -1
escorts/raider >20 -2
This is even out the field somewhat, right now escorts have all the advantages in movement, plus the biggest guns and near cruiser level tanking.
And while you are at it, increase beam range by 2km.
Let me add my to the story a bit. My Fleet Excel has been averaging 6k during KASE recently, which anyone would probably agree is pretty good for a cruiser, and I have been sparring with a guy with a Fleet Defiant that does about 10k. Unless I tractor him, I literally cannot knock his shields down, and damage I do is via bleed-through. He was watching his combat log and even noticed that his ships resistances actually soaked all of my Advanced Fleet Phaser Turrets damage.
I'm not going to delve in this issue, its way to far of a hot issue/time bomb waiting to go off and if it does people aren't going to be happy. All I am going to say is that the relation you have pointed is too far of an extreme and one that is almost dropped in as minefield which will beg to get the thread locked down if it is discussed.
The very definition of a core competency suggests that its an imbalance, of course its an imbalance. Remember, the KDF ships have less hull and shield ratings than their Fed' counterparts as well they pay a price for that imbalance with an imbalance that benefits the Fed's.
Mind you, I am big-time majority Fed' player saying this. It's not the +1 turn rate that most of the KDF players are worried about, they see all of the things that made KDF ships what they are being whittled away and yes, they are frustrated with the content issues. Most of the consoles being swapped between factions do benefit the KDF much less (if at all) than benefits the Fed's. I agree with their points to an extent.
As far as uni consoles, the main ship that has the uni's is the BOP other than that, they are pretty much the same as the Fed ships in numbers.
you, buddy, you are someone! i have to remember your name!
+1 with all what you said in the quote!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
It's not bogus. I can see where somebody would say it's bogus. For the most part, the majority of us whether we took a couple of Physics courses before or in college - well, most of us would never touch upon everything that's actually involved. We pretty much just moved little cubes, balls, and the like (solid, mind you) through imaginary vacuums as we did our homework or took tests, etc, etc, etc.
Where to start?
A straight line. From X to Y. A larger mass will require more force to move from X to Y. Bam, right from the start we've introduced a limitation based on reasonable engine size. It may not be reasonable to have the size engine we need to place on the larger ship so it can go from X to Y as fast as a smaller ship. So we're more than likely going to be slower. That aspect would have been covered - minus the size of the engine - in discussing the amount of force needed.
Likewise, that larger vessel is going to have greater momentum. It will take a greater force to slow and stop that larger vessel. So, we don't want it to go too fast - or we wouldn't be able to stop it. Again, the reasonable engine size should come to mind.
But it's not a 2D plane. We're not just moving from X to Y. We're looking at vector forces being applied to move through a 3D system. So we need to look at the potential application of force in a manner that accounts for that. Again, this is going to limit us.
So that's all great and everything, but the real fun begins when you consider that we're not dealing with solid masses. Every see a TV show, movie, or even commercial where they show an impact...and...the car getting crushed - collapsing, etc, etc, etc?
Structural integrity/design will matter as we consider applying those forces. Moving from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1) is not the same as moving from (0,0,0) to (0,1,0). The vessel needs to withstand the force moving it in any number of directions without crumpling. Sure, on larger vessels we could reinforce the structure...but then we're adding mass...we'll need more force...and we'll need to reinforce the structure...but then we're adding mass...oh wait. Yeah, so it's another limiting factor.
So no, it's not bogus in the least. There are a multitude of reasons why a larger ship is going to be move slower, turn slower, accelerate slower, decelerate slower, etc, etc, etc...
That's all before considering that there are people on the vessel, eh? Those Inertial Dampeners can only stave off so much Star Trek Shake.
the difference is bigger than what you said actually.
i am doing 5.5K damage with my focus beam setup on my galaxy x.
one of my fleetmate in a bug doing 8k in focus setup, this number go to 12k when he use multi target setup.
ACT recorded him doing 18k damage once.
this guy and an other of my fleet have finish CSE with only the 2 of them with optional( 2 escort ).
here the proof:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=407821
so yeah escort power, when properly configured is way beyong cruiser
not that i care, some cruiser are capable to reduce the gap already, but some so called tactical cruiser ( yes gal x, i am looking at you!) are limited too much by their BO layout.
i am sure that with a good one, he can reach 7 and maybe 8K, and that would be more than sufficient.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Sufficient. That quirky and murky line.
Sufficient for ISE?
Sufficient for HOSE?
Sufficient for NWS?
Actually sufficient or efficient sufficient? Sufficient to do it in X amount of time - the required time...or...sufficient to do it in Y amount of time - the time certain players want it to be completed?
And well, that's just PvE...
On an individual basis, the glass cannon should deal a lot of damage but also should die or be forced to retreat a lot. Over the course of an encounter, his damage graph will go up and down a lot. The tank doesn't deal a lot of damage, but doesn't die or need to retreat. Over the course of an encounter, his damage graph is a fairly steady line. Over the course of an encounter, both types should deal roughly the same amount of damage. For example, half the time the glass cannon is dealing double the damage of the tank, but the other half the time he's dealing 0 damage.
On a team basis, when they team up properly the damage becomes greater than the sum of their parts - the glass cannon suddenly loses the valleys in his damage graph, and together they deal triple their damage rather than double.
I believe that is how it's supposed to work. How it's implemented in STO is that the glass cannons don't really need to retreat, or die, which severely skews the trinity's balance.
If you can't fly your big ship, +1 turn isn't going to help you... If you aren't happy turning slowly, don't fly a big ship...
And realy, because the dread carrier gets a turn 6 Fed cruisers need a turn rate buff? Did I miss the memo where suddenly turn 6 was desireable? Turn 6 is still dreadful, pardon the pun.
People need to learn how to fly this ships as they are before screaming for buffs and nerfs. So many people out there simply cannot fly, and try to blame their failings on the design of the ship. Yes, there are a few less then desireable ships, but most ships are quite capable, it is their pilots that are lacking.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
well it is not a secret that my level in english is not what i wich it to be:) but i don't anderstand what " quirky and murky line" mean.
nethertheless, i will explain to you what sufficient, here, for me, mean.
it is not about the time it take, or the type of stf, or anything related to pve, i don't build my ship to do pve, but pvp.
it about the ship, sufficient here would translate in what a tactical oriented cruiser should be able to reach when properly configured.
i am sure some exelsior, regent, dkora are already able to achieve this with a tact toon.
the galaxy x isn't, wich is a nonsense dut to it more tactical oriented design ( cloack, lance, abilitie to mount dual canon ).
the problem is that we don't have the possibility to have a decent cannon build in this ship, and before you ask, a decent canon build is at least 2 rapid fire1 ( or 2CSV1 for pve, if some want to only do pve ).
many guy here speak about enhancing the beam and all sort of things, i found their idea very good, but i simply don't bielieve cryptic will ever change their system.
so, for sure, the best way,is to go with the current system, and to do more damage, you need cannon, plain and simple.
and that not going the easy way either, because having a cannon build in a 6base turnate ship....well, you known.
i hope that help clear it up.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Not to be rude but ships do have artificial gravity along with inertial dampeners to keep crew from sufering ill effects from maneuvers at high speed and warp jumps.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!