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.
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.
Like someone said before me, inertial dampers fixed this problem a while ago - back before the NX-01, in fact. Otherwise, every crewmember would be a meat pancake on the walls every time the ship used the warp engines.
Your "issues with turning in this game" are irrelevant.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
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.
I agree with you. The escorts in the game really don't have to respect/fear other classes in this game. And that's being said by a guy who uses all three classes.
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.
I agree with you. The escorts in the game really don't have to respect/fear other classes in this game. And that's being said by a guy who uses all three classes.
I'm forced to agree as well. I have no fear when I take on targets in my KDF's destroyer (aka slower escort) - if I do die, I just respawn.
Darkjeff's right. The trinity balance is skewed in favour of escorts, and it's a problem for those who enjoy flying cruisers or sci vessels.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
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.
To an extent - not the extent that occurs in the game.
Like someone said before me, inertial dampers fixed this problem a while ago - back before the NX-01, in fact. Otherwise, every crewmember would be a meat pancake on the walls every time the ship used the warp engines.
Your "issues with turning in this game" are irrelevant.
Again, to an extent - not the extent that occurs in the game.
Seriously - hop in a cruiser. Tada - that's what inertial dampeners help with - that maneuvering. Hell, hop in an unbuffed/ungeared escort. Tada - even that, you could easily accept that inertial dampeners could deal with that.
Now buff and gear the escort. Crew would be meat pancakes.
It's like you have no idea how fast you can make an escort turn and go...
...or maybe you do have an idea and simply do not care that it makes no sense.
You're forgetting that this is the 25th century. Starfleet has had three centuries, possibly more, to build on an inertial damper system that must have been used in Cochrane's Phoenix. Granted, it's not perfect (nothing is), but for the most part, other than the ship quakes and side-to-side motion in battle, the IDF system generally compensates without damage to the crew.
You're trying to disprove the working concept present in the whole Trek franchise. Every single ship in Star Trek, Animated Series, The Next Generation, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, The Movies, and JJ Trek has IDF systems that compensate for sudden bursts of movement, which would usually kill crew even before the ship reached lightspeed (going by time to approach lightspeed is the usual four seconds as seen in TNG and on).
STO is no different. Sure, some of these escorts have some pretty fast turn and accel rates. I reference the USS Defiant in this case - in the finale episode, you are treated to a mundane view of the battle. In one scene, the Defiant does a loop-de-loop and shoots some Jem'Hadar fighters. The turn rate, while a little quicker in STO, is not much faster than the turn rate of the replacement USS Defiant.
Also, STO does some creative licensing, in the fact that the game's timeframe is undefined by any Trek episode. I'm sure there are improvements to the IDF system and thruster force and efficiency, just like there have been improvements on ship design, culminating in the Big-Fat-Odyssey class.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Where did a BoP, Escort, anything turn as fast as it can in STO?
Again, I'm not talking about the base rates. I'm not even talking about how X might boost that - how Y might boost that - how Z might boost that. I'm talking about how X, Y, & Z can boost it.
I'm talking about going from 18-20 to 40-50+ for extended periods of time.
I'm talking about an effective cap on how much turn a ship can have. I'd say that's a more logical move than trying to buff ships without a logical reason or nerfing ships because there's not a logical reason to buff the other.
There's a reason why Cruisers can only turn so much.
There's a reason why Escorts can turn that much more.
There's no reason why Escorts can turn as much as they can.
It's one thing even to double it for a short period of time.
It's another to more than double it for an extended period of time.
I'm a pretty new player, I only started playing about a month ago, and I just capped at 50 about 3 days ago. I play as tactical, and I was all about cruisers at first. They were big, had lots device slots, they weren't too bad in maneuvering, and they had some pretty decent hulls. For awhile I was enjoying the eject warp plasma ability, as I could use evasive manuvers to fly past large groups of enemies and hit them all with the ability, to enable my team to spread torpedo the TRIBBLE out of them.
But I noticed that with each advancement, the cruisers were getting slower, and slower, and slower... until I realized that my cruisers was turning comically slow by level 50. I could barely turn around! Let alone use moving combat abilities. I bought some master keys and I got the advanced mirror escort, and wow! I'm never looking back to cruisers! I'm free again, I can move and fly and actually turn to face my opponents without using two attack patterns and evasive maneuvers all at the same time.
I understand that cruisers have a lot of hull in exchange for maneuverability, but there has to be a threshold somewhere, in that becoming an immobile bunker is not very helpful, but you also can't have a flying tank with amazing handling.
All in all, I'm not familiar enough with the numbers to say that +1 turning rate will solve the problem, or create new ones, but something probably should be done.
My concern gets back to a basic faction unique playstyle. KDF was initially intended to be a hit an run playstyle w/a weak Science capability and fragile ships. Think dive bombing birds of prey in a literal sense.
The Feds are more like a wolfpack that uses endurance to wear down a target threw coordinated teamwork. They're also built to outlast an opponent in terms of defenses. It's why Fed scorts are better than KDF scorts and as follows Fed repair supports are better at their jobs even if they're in ships w/the exact same layout.
This is why even KDF cruisers are designed to manuever better. They are there to provide pressure damage while Raiders hit and run. If then need to withdraw they need to be able to move better than who they're withdrawing from.
The influx of hybrid style ships et al has blurred these lines. I'd rather not blur them any further.
[Zone] Dack@****: cowards can't take a fed 1 on 1 crinckley cowards Hahahaha you smell like flowers
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
I really wish we could have a discussion involving a dev' about the whole thing, especially the state of the trinity of class of ships. It doesn't make ANY progress if they aren't listening.
I really wish we could have a discussion involving a dev' about the whole thing, especially the state of the trinity of class of ships. It doesn't make ANY progress if they aren't listening.
Cruisers don't need better turn rates, beams need to be better overall, and maybe there needs to be some torps with side launchers. Making gameplay more alike for all 3 ship types isn't really a great solution, that said all 3 types should be good.
I really wish we could have a discussion involving a dev' about the whole thing, especially the state of the trinity of class of ships. It doesn't make ANY progress if they aren't listening.
This isn't the first discussion on the matter. Like you're wishing they'd respond, they're likely wishing everybody had searched the forums. They'll never say that, though - they're just as aware of the borked Archived Post nonsense as everybody else is... but yeah, this isn't the first discussion on the matter.
I used to fly the Galaxy-X often. I really enjoyed the lance and cloak...fun toys. When they released the Fleet Excelsior I jumped into that and flew that for quite a while. Just recently I thought I would go back and fly my dreadnought for a few stf's and it was...for the lack of a better word...painful. It really sucks when you are engaging multiple enemy ships and you are focusing on one of the ships and then after it's destroyed you realize the other ship(s) have flanked you. Then you have to try and turn the beast around. Good luck with that...it's not like your in any danger of dieing with these enemies on your TRIBBLE. It's just painfully boring to sit there turning for 10 seconds just to get back into firing position. I never use my Galaxy-X anymore. I can't stand to fly anything with a turn rate under 7. I think all fed cruisers should get a +1 bump to their turn rate. It wouldn't break the semblance of ?balance? that we currently have now, but it would make these ships a lot more fun to fly.
All I can say is evasive or deuterium or Aux2ID or AP:A and learning to turn in reverse...
If its taking you 10 seconds to turn around in a fire fight, you are doing it wrong. Big ships can turn really well in reverse.
Once you get the rhythm down you can get front face when you want it.
The more it's discussed, the more some of it is coming off as a lack of piloting ability than the ship itself. Many folks aren't discussing trying to keep a target in a particular arc like an Escort...they're just discussing basic piloting things that they're doing wrong.
All I can say is evasive or deuterium or Aux2ID or AP:A and learning to turn in reverse...
If its taking you 10 seconds to turn around in a fire fight, you are doing it wrong. Big ships can turn really well in reverse.
Once you get the rhythm down you can get front face when you want it.
If you've already used evasive and or ap:a or omega then your left with only reverse turning. Which, yes I can do, (10 seconds was an exaggeration) point was that I can do it faster in the Excelsior then I can in the dreadnought which makes it much nicer to fly.
This is why even KDF cruisers are designed to manuever better. They are there to provide pressure damage while Raiders hit and run. If then need to withdraw they need to be able to move better than who they're withdrawing from.
This would be relevant if, you know, anyone actually needed to withdraw more than once or twice during an entire eSTF.
Comments
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!
DEMAND!!!! :cool:
You missed entirely my reason as for why, nice try.
Like someone said before me, inertial dampers fixed this problem a while ago - back before the NX-01, in fact. Otherwise, every crewmember would be a meat pancake on the walls every time the ship used the warp engines.
Your "issues with turning in this game" are irrelevant.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I agree with you. The escorts in the game really don't have to respect/fear other classes in this game. And that's being said by a guy who uses all three classes.
I'm forced to agree as well. I have no fear when I take on targets in my KDF's destroyer (aka slower escort) - if I do die, I just respawn.
Darkjeff's right. The trinity balance is skewed in favour of escorts, and it's a problem for those who enjoy flying cruisers or sci vessels.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
To an extent - not the extent that occurs in the game.
No, I pointed out where you were wrong.
Again, to an extent - not the extent that occurs in the game.
Seriously - hop in a cruiser. Tada - that's what inertial dampeners help with - that maneuvering. Hell, hop in an unbuffed/ungeared escort. Tada - even that, you could easily accept that inertial dampeners could deal with that.
Now buff and gear the escort. Crew would be meat pancakes.
It's like you have no idea how fast you can make an escort turn and go...
...or maybe you do have an idea and simply do not care that it makes no sense.
You're trying to disprove the working concept present in the whole Trek franchise. Every single ship in Star Trek, Animated Series, The Next Generation, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, The Movies, and JJ Trek has IDF systems that compensate for sudden bursts of movement, which would usually kill crew even before the ship reached lightspeed (going by time to approach lightspeed is the usual four seconds as seen in TNG and on).
STO is no different. Sure, some of these escorts have some pretty fast turn and accel rates. I reference the USS Defiant in this case - in the finale episode, you are treated to a mundane view of the battle. In one scene, the Defiant does a loop-de-loop and shoots some Jem'Hadar fighters. The turn rate, while a little quicker in STO, is not much faster than the turn rate of the replacement USS Defiant.
Also, STO does some creative licensing, in the fact that the game's timeframe is undefined by any Trek episode. I'm sure there are improvements to the IDF system and thruster force and efficiency, just like there have been improvements on ship design, culminating in the Big-Fat-Odyssey class.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Again, I'm not talking about the base rates. I'm not even talking about how X might boost that - how Y might boost that - how Z might boost that. I'm talking about how X, Y, & Z can boost it.
I'm talking about going from 18-20 to 40-50+ for extended periods of time.
I'm talking about an effective cap on how much turn a ship can have. I'd say that's a more logical move than trying to buff ships without a logical reason or nerfing ships because there's not a logical reason to buff the other.
There's a reason why Cruisers can only turn so much.
There's a reason why Escorts can turn that much more.
There's no reason why Escorts can turn as much as they can.
It's one thing even to double it for a short period of time.
It's another to more than double it for an extended period of time.
But I noticed that with each advancement, the cruisers were getting slower, and slower, and slower... until I realized that my cruisers was turning comically slow by level 50. I could barely turn around! Let alone use moving combat abilities. I bought some master keys and I got the advanced mirror escort, and wow! I'm never looking back to cruisers! I'm free again, I can move and fly and actually turn to face my opponents without using two attack patterns and evasive maneuvers all at the same time.
I understand that cruisers have a lot of hull in exchange for maneuverability, but there has to be a threshold somewhere, in that becoming an immobile bunker is not very helpful, but you also can't have a flying tank with amazing handling.
All in all, I'm not familiar enough with the numbers to say that +1 turning rate will solve the problem, or create new ones, but something probably should be done.
The Feds are more like a wolfpack that uses endurance to wear down a target threw coordinated teamwork. They're also built to outlast an opponent in terms of defenses. It's why Fed scorts are better than KDF scorts and as follows Fed repair supports are better at their jobs even if they're in ships w/the exact same layout.
This is why even KDF cruisers are designed to manuever better. They are there to provide pressure damage while Raiders hit and run. If then need to withdraw they need to be able to move better than who they're withdrawing from.
The influx of hybrid style ships et al has blurred these lines. I'd rather not blur them any further.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
Quite true.
WORKING AS INTENDED.
-.-
This isn't the first discussion on the matter. Like you're wishing they'd respond, they're likely wishing everybody had searched the forums. They'll never say that, though - they're just as aware of the borked Archived Post nonsense as everybody else is... but yeah, this isn't the first discussion on the matter.
If its taking you 10 seconds to turn around in a fire fight, you are doing it wrong. Big ships can turn really well in reverse.
Once you get the rhythm down you can get front face when you want it.
Fleet Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
The more it's discussed, the more some of it is coming off as a lack of piloting ability than the ship itself. Many folks aren't discussing trying to keep a target in a particular arc like an Escort...they're just discussing basic piloting things that they're doing wrong.
If you've already used evasive and or ap:a or omega then your left with only reverse turning. Which, yes I can do, (10 seconds was an exaggeration) point was that I can do it faster in the Excelsior then I can in the dreadnought which makes it much nicer to fly.
This would be relevant if, you know, anyone actually needed to withdraw more than once or twice during an entire eSTF.