test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Address contradiction between Star Trek show cruisers and STO cruisers
knuhteb5
Member Posts: 1,831 Arc User
http://bfinfobase.org/index.php?title=Phaser_(starship)
This is as much a game related discussion question as it a lore question. As of late, a lot of people have been complaining about the inadequacy of cruisers in PVP and STF's as compared to escorts. Now, what I'd like to know is why would a STO cruiser's beam hit's base damage against enemies/NPC's be the same as an escort when a cruiser's warp core is is larger and thus, capable of more energy output? Likewise, the beam arrays on flag ship cruisers were composed of more emitter segments than any small escorts beam arrays would have been. Therefore, assuming a Cruiser has a larger warpcore and has beam arrays composed of many more emitter segments than a escort's, then a cruiser's base damage should be greater than a escort.
On second thought, I don't think the warp core matters as much because it's more a question of the efficiency of the plasma distribution system in a starship which would be about the same for escorts and cruisers from the same period.
Edit: Anyways, the point of my question above is to get you to question the dev's decision to make base damage the same for all ships (or put another way, that escorts get innate ship bonuses to weapons when cruisers do not). This should be addressed in some way-for example, giving cruisers an innate +15, +20 power to weapons. It no longer makes sense, imo, that escorts should be dishing out more damage than a a cruiser that has beam arrays composed of many more emitter segments. This is further justified by how gimped cruisers have become because of their poor turn-rates.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. No tier 5 escort should be outclassing a Fleet Negh'var or Odyssey class cruiser. These are massive flagship cruisers with beam array emitter systems that could crush any Fed, Kling escort.
This is as much a game related discussion question as it a lore question. As of late, a lot of people have been complaining about the inadequacy of cruisers in PVP and STF's as compared to escorts. Now, what I'd like to know is why would a STO cruiser's beam hit's base damage against enemies/NPC's be the same as an escort when a cruiser's warp core is is larger and thus, capable of more energy output? Likewise, the beam arrays on flag ship cruisers were composed of more emitter segments than any small escorts beam arrays would have been. Therefore, assuming a Cruiser has a larger warpcore and has beam arrays composed of many more emitter segments than a escort's, then a cruiser's base damage should be greater than a escort.
On second thought, I don't think the warp core matters as much because it's more a question of the efficiency of the plasma distribution system in a starship which would be about the same for escorts and cruisers from the same period.
Edit: Anyways, the point of my question above is to get you to question the dev's decision to make base damage the same for all ships (or put another way, that escorts get innate ship bonuses to weapons when cruisers do not). This should be addressed in some way-for example, giving cruisers an innate +15, +20 power to weapons. It no longer makes sense, imo, that escorts should be dishing out more damage than a a cruiser that has beam arrays composed of many more emitter segments. This is further justified by how gimped cruisers have become because of their poor turn-rates.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. No tier 5 escort should be outclassing a Fleet Negh'var or Odyssey class cruiser. These are massive flagship cruisers with beam array emitter systems that could crush any Fed, Kling escort.
Post edited by knuhteb5 on
0
Comments
To you, I say "good try", but I won't actually ridicule you because you were at least open and honest with your "super cruiser" request.
Hah. Escorts kill, cruisers heal/tank, and science ships crowd-control. Each is just as important and valid as the others. It's not my fault (or his) that players focus too much on damage, solo-play, and being the perceived "hero" rather than working together as a group. :rolleyes:
One thing that I think we need is to have 360 degree beam turrets to match with the existing cannon turrets. The damage would be scaled such that running all-turrets would give you less damage than an all-beam-array broadside, but more damage than facing the enemy and hitting him with only the forward beam arrays. This would also make a setup with Dual Beam Banks forward and Beam Turrets aft viable as a beam counterpart to the Dual Cannons / Cannon Turrets setup--you would get less damage overall than the cannons setup except at long range, but you would have a 90 degree forward cone instead of 45 degree and could use beam BOFF abilities. This would go a long way towards addressing the main weakness of beam weapons--the fact that you can only use your fore and aft weapons together in a broadside attack where your torpedoes and other forward-facing abilities are facing AWAY from the enemy.
Another possibility would be a broadside-only torpedo launcher, for shooting torpedoes at an enemy during a broadside beam strike. Instead of firing only in the fore/aft 90 degree cone, it would fire in the broadside arc (e.g. anywhere that is more than 60 degrees away from your fore/aft). You would need to have a fore, aft, and broadside torpedo launcher mounted (i.e. 3 weapons) in order to obtain near-360-degree torpedo coverage, which in practice would mean that you would have to sacrifice one of your beams to mount it (e.g. 3 beams / 1 torp fore and 2 beams / 1 regular torp / 1 broadside torp aft).
But you do not need heal/tank or crowd control in current PvE, 5 tac escorts can finish elite STF faster, than if they would have engineers in cruisers or science ships in team.
Let the stupid suffer
You mean +5 to each subsystem. Do your homework.
Now see, this is a proposal that actually has merit. It doesn't attempt to (drastically) upset the existing *BALANCE* (yes, it is properly balanced) of the starship types, but does attempt to increase the general versatility of cruisers. I can support something like this.
It's a truism. You're acting like it's a fact that's being denied, when it's an INTENTIONAL DESIGN DECISION. It's not a bug to be fixed, it's on purpose. "Fixing" it would be deliberately imbalancing the game to make Cruisers better for all purposes than Escorts. What you should be asking for, instead, is for Escorts that are maximized for durability to be less durable, or Cruisers that are maximized for durability to be more durable.
Asking for Cruisers to do more damage is akin to asking that rock beat both paper and scissors, with no other changes to either paper or scissors. It doesn't matter what happened on screen, this is a GAME. It absolutely must have different design goals than a TV series, or it will completely fail as a game.
While a pulsed cannon shot is like whacking something with a hammer, a continuous beam would be like hitting an object with the same force as the cannon, but then continually applying that same amount of force. Although, really, this analogy is flawed to begin with since there's not actually a kinetic component to energy damage.
It's really more about the heat energy that would be applied, which would be dissipated much more quickly with pulsed shots than a beam.
I think a more accurate analogy would be the difference between flicking lit matches at someone's face, and holding a lit match under someone's nose.
Yes, I know it's an intentional design decision, but regardless, it does matter what happened on screen. If it didn't matter, why would Cryptic justify lock boxes by claiming CBS wanted to limit the number of jem'hadar attack ships, ferengi D'koras, and cardassian galors? Why would Cryptic be against adding in a tier 5 connie because they say CBS is opposed to it? In the same way, wouldn't CBS be likely to say the same thing about CRuiser versus escort weapons power if they actually played the game? Frankly, I would venture to say that CBS would be flabbergasted when they see escorts routinely destroying large cruisers in pvp and STF's. How is it that an 5 escorts can complete an STF without needing science or cruiser ships? How is it that a small escort with small beam emitter arrays can out DPS flagship cruisers that are 10 times the size of them? None of that make sense.
To address your concerns about escorts becoming too weak with respect to cruisers, I could see escorts getting a turn-rate buff, but not much more than that. Escorts aren't more durable than large cruisers because their hulls aren't designed to take as much of a pounding.
Edit: As somebody else has already said in this thread, escorts are "escorts," not destroyers. Escorts are meant for supporting a fleet, not for being the most powerful ships. If escorts are going to be the most powerful ships, don't call them escorts anymore; call them destroyers.
Very good, sound ideas. I particularly like the idea of beam turrets doing as much damage as an all forward beam attack but not as much as a full on broadside attack. The broadside torpedo is also a fantastic idea, but unfortunately, Cryptic already shot themselves in the foot on that one by introducing the Sovereign refit in the c-store. The broadside console on that is essentially the same thing as what you're proposing, and if cryptic did introduced broadside torpedo weapons, refit owners would feel the value of their ship is significantly diminished.
However, let me say this. You still aren't addressing the inherent imbalance in weapon power between escorts and cruisers. How would you address this? Would you give cruisers an innate +5, +10 to power while raising turn-rates for escorts?
I agree, such honesty is rather refreshing!
The best forms of power generation increase exponentially - as physical space increases, power generation increases by a factor of 2. This is true with nuclear power, and would be true with any other form of power generated at the atomic or subatomic level.
Energy fields, meanwhile, work differently. As the size of the field increases, the power required to generate it increases GEOMETRICALLY, or by a factor of 3.
It actually makes more scientific sense for a smaller ship with energy weapons and energy shields to deal more damage (and have more shielding) than a larger ship with energy weapons and energy shields. The power generation-to-power consumption ratio will always favor the small ship.
In STO, we only see this in the form of escorts having higher damage. Cruisers still get better defenses in the form of better shield modifiers, more hull points, and a much larger selection of heals.
They called them escorts because the Federation balks at seeming like a threat. The Defiant was a warship through and through.
What kind of damage numbers are you seeing? My non-fleet Engineer Excelsior can pull ~5k DPS in a HulkSmash setup, with all the buffs tied to an idiot-bar. If I spent the effort to actually space out EPtW, Weapons Battery, and Aux 2 Batt properly, and get better gear I could probably go higher. It's an alt toon I only play with my son, so I don't bother.
Some in my fleet have cruisers that can hit 10k+ DPS. If you're not hitting at least 5k, time to spruce up your build.
Two instances where starship characters recognize that escorts are no match for a full fledged battleship/cruiser:
From DS9 Episode "Valiant"
[Valiant Mess hall]
SHEPARD: Attention on deck!
WATTERS: Stand at ease. It's been a long eight months. A lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifice. Now we've accomplished our mission. We found the battleship and obtained a complete scan without being detected, and we're free to go home. But that ship out there is a direct threat to every Federation outpost and colony within fifty light years. That ship must be destroyed. It can be destroyed. Commander?
FARRIS: We've found a flaw in the design of their antimatter storage system. The primary support braces are made of viterium.
WATTERS: It's a very strong, very resilient metal alloy which just happens to become extremely unstable when exposed to delta radiation.
FARRIS: A single torpedo rigged with a radiogenic warhead could reduce those braces to the consistency of wet pasta.
WATTERS: And as a result, the entire antimatter storage system would tear itself apart. Commander Nog, you don't seem convinced.
NOG: Well, sir, in order to rig a torpedo to yield a delta radiation burst I'll have to remove most of the guidance systems. We'll have to target it manually.
FARRIS: We've trained for that possibility. It shouldn't be a problem.
NOG: We'll also have to get very close to the target.
WATTERS: How close?
NOG: Within three hundred metres.
WATTERS: It's dangerous, there's no disputing that. And no one would think any less of us if we just turn around and go home. But that means that some other ship with some other crew would be asked to finish the job that we started. I think we can do it. I think we should do it.
JAKE: Can I say something?
FARRIS: You are not a member of this crew.
WATTERS: Let him speak.
JAKE: You all probably know who my father is. Benjamin Sisko. So you know I'm not exaggerating when I say that he's considered to be one of the best combat officers in the fleet. And I'm telling you right now that even with the entire crew of the Defiant with him, my father would never try to pull off something like this. And if he can't do it, it can't be done.
WATTERS: We're Red Squad and we can do anything.
(And the room cheers.)
ALL: Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad! Red Squad!
[Valiant Engine room]
(Nog is working on the torpedo.)
JAKE: This is suicide.
NOG: No, it's not.
JAKE: Nog, listen to me. We're in way over our heads here. Now someone told me that ship out there is twice the size of a Galaxy class starship and three times as strong.
NOG: That's accurate.
JAKE: And you really think we can go up against a ship like that?
NOG: I think that Captain Watters
[Valiant Ready room]
NOG [on monitor] Knows what he's doing.
JAKE [on monitor]: Oh, really? Well, did you know that Watters has been taking cordafin stimulants for the past two months?
NOG [on monitor]: Where did you hear that?
JAKE [on monitor]: Dorian told me.
NOG [on monitor]: You were ordered to stay away from her!
JAKE [on monitor]: Will you forget about obeying orders for just a minute!
WATTERS: Watters to Shepard. Please report to my Ready room, Lieutenant.
NOG [on monitor]: That's not the way we do things in Starfleet.
(Watters turns off the monitor.)
[Valiant Engine room]
JAKE: I can't believe you're buying everything that Watters is selling.
NOG: He's not selling anything. He's reminding us of our duty.
JAKE: I feel like I'm having a conversation with one of the bulkheads.
NOG: You don't understand because you've never put on one of these uniforms. You don't know anything about sacrifice or honour or duty or any of the things that make up a soldier's life. I'm part of something larger than myself. All you care about is you.
JAKE: That's right. All I care about is Jake Sisko and whether or not he's going to be killed by a bunch of delusional fanatics looking for martyrdom.
NOG: Get out.
JAKE: I don't even know who you are anymore.
NOG: I'm the Chief Engineer of the starship Valiant.
JAKE: I'll have them put that on your tombstone.
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Trek-Generations.html
From Star Trek: Generations
PICARD'S COM VOICE
Klingon vessel. We know what
you're doing, and we will destroy
any probe launched toward the
Veridian star.
Soran's expression darkens.
B'ETOR
What do we do?
Soran checks his watch.
SORAN
There's no time for this.
Eliminate them.
B'ETOR
(reacts)
That is a Galaxy class Starship.
We are no match for them.
Soran thinks for a moment... then he gets an idea. He
pulls Geordi's VISOR out of a pocket. He eyes it with
intent.
SORAN
I think it's time we gave Mister
La Forge his sight back.
As you see, there is ample basis within the shows and movies for assuming that cruisers out DPS raiders/escorts like BOP's and the defiant. And I do believe CBS would want a Star Trek game to reflect this difference in terms of the inherent weapons each class has.
Agreed that there are ways around the higher escorts dps in pvp such as the tract beam repulsor push away boosted by red matter cap. However, you're missing the point of my thread. I'm asking how is it that the base damage of an escort is higher than a cruiser when cruisers on the shows have larger beam arrays that do more base damage than the arrays on escorts.
So by that argument, a cannon should do more damage than a small chunk of C4, because a cannonball is bigger, right? :rolleyes: For that matter, a cannonball is bigger than most tank rounds. I guess militaries around the world made a mistake by switching away from cannons, right?
Again, I'm on a cell phone, so I cannot type long replies or do fancy things with quotes. To address your "canon on screen references to cruisers pwn face" statements, the first instance with Nog was referring to the fact that they were going up against a DREADNOUGHT, and the second was a ship TWO CENTURIES old going up against a modern starship. In both cases, they were completely outclassed.
In STO, dreadnoughts are difficult to kill solo, requiring several minutes to destroy. Science vessels are best at killing them, since they have abilities to strip shields, drain power levels, hold them in place, etc. Escorts aren't as effective at killing them without the assistance of a science vessel. As for the BOP vs Galaxy argument, the particular model of BOP shown in Generations is the basic T1 or T2 variant shown in STO. Higher tiers have newer, stronger versions of BOPs.
Heat energy dissipates very very slowly in space. Secondly, it has nothing to do with heat damage and more to do with the constriants of massive power consumption relative to the xyz area that has to be powered.
Think of it this way: Which would be more powerful - a ship with a massive warp core, powering a few holodecks, a botanical room, hundreds of private quarters, a bar, and many many more ship areas as well as shields, deflector and weapons. Or a ship with a massive warp core and nothing but guns and a few bulkheads strapped to it.
Because CBS has veto power over every substantive decision in the game. They have to have CBS's approval to put ANY ship in. They want to put a T5 Connie in; CBS doesn't let them, so far. CBS wants to limit the number of Jem'hadar attack ships, not Cryptic; Cryptic floated the idea of limiting the number of such ships by putting them in the lockboxes, and CBS agreed.
It's not a pose, it's the whole honest truth; CBS really does exercise that level of control over the game. When the Nebula was introduced, supposedly CBS pulled the plug on the initial release of it with 24 hours of when it was scheduled to launch. It delayed a patch while Cryptic pulled that ship out, after telling people it was coming. Caused a huge ruckus, but CBS wasn't happy with something about it.
But that's not why Cruisers do less damage than Escorts. The reason Cruisers do less damage than Escorts is that if they didn't, hardly anybody would fly Escorts. Why should they? Cruisers would be better at both DPS AND Tanking.
If you want a mix of ships in the game, they have to be better at different things. This game would be incredibly boring if all you saw all day long was the exact same ship going by, with no difference except the windows and the paint.
Cruisers being best at everything works for a TV show, where only one ship matters; it doesn't work for a multiplayer game, where World of Cruisers would just look boring.
The problem with your example is that, in the case of the Valiant, given Nog's confirmation, the ship they were fighting had three times the "strength" of a Galaxy-class ship. Whether this means hull strength, weapons strength, or both is up for debate, but the takeaway is that this ship supposedly outclassed the Galaxy by a huge margin.
In your second example, Worf stated that the B'rel Bird-of-Prey the Duras sisters were flying was an outdated starship that was mostly taken out of service because of its defect. The Defiant, on the other hand, was a much more modern starship by comparison.
Conversely, we have an episode with Gul Dukat complaining to Sisko about the Maquis being in possession of one of the most heavily-armed warships in the sector (the Defiant). You could argue that he was lying since Cardassians seem to be prone to that, but I'd argue that if he were going to lie, he'd just say "our superior Cardassian ships can take care of the matter" and hope that they did. Instead, he put aside his pride to protect his people by enlisting Sisko's help.
I wasn't really arguing the size of the warp core, but the nature of the weapons. With no kinetic force to pure energy weapons, the only real measure of damage is how much heat energy you can apply to your target, and how quickly. A constant application of heat is much more effective than even a rapid but non-constant application.
The real reason that the Defiant is so much more powerful than cruisers is the Revolver/Katana rule -- cannons are cooler than beams, and so they're just better, regardless of any actual basis in reality.
This is coming from someone who loves the Defiant, obviously. I've been flying one almost exclusively for over two years. The pulsed cannons just aren't the most efficient use of energy, realistically.
If by better at different things, you mean that you only need 5 escorts to play elite STF's, I see what you mean. The game is incredibly boring, as is, because STF play favors going for max dps; hence, one of the reasons for me starting this thread because cruisers aren't as favored as escorts in STF's. That a cruiser can out-tank an escort is uniquely different but is plainly irrelevant since escorts don't even need to depend on cruisers anymore in STF's. How do you address this issue because I have seen you do it yet? Leviathan in the discussion section at least is being a little more realistic by suggesting that borg ships should have special attacks that only cruisers can survive. This would help reinforce the idea that raiders/escorts support and cruisers are still needed to soak up the hardest hits.
LOLZZZ!!! So that is the rule that justifies the decision to make escorts have higher dps than cruisers!? It's all so clear now!!! ^_^
Granted, the b'rel from Generations was a fail of prey, so that wasn't the best example. However, the jemy battleship dreadnought isn't that bad of an example, and it still stands. The odyssey, probably about as powerful in terms of hull and weapons power as that jemy battleship, should be able to easily outclass the defiant/Kling tier 5 escorts in terms of dps.
PVE is a DPS game period
There is no need for a tank , I tank quite well in my Escort and deal 3x as much DPS as a cruiser does. I also heal quite well so much in fact i usually send Heals to cruisers
PvP is a seperate issue with its own problems
In order to compete cruisers in general need a DPS increase there are many ways to do it , Escorts arnt overpowered Cruisers are just underpowered.
With the slow turn rate there is no reason dps from a cruiser should not equal a escort except for escort captions who think they should have a superior firepower when in lore and history and plain common sense they should have MUCH less.
My Engineer flys the Fleet excelsior it has 4 weapon consoles and does really good DPS it is a welcome part of the fleet STF team any time i take it out , The Galaxy Class however is a liability to the team and not wanted on a team because its DPS is so poor it cant be a positive member of the team. 2 weapons consoles along with the worst bridge officer layout seal its fate when in fact it is a much newer better armed ship then 2 Excelsiors were .
STO Devs needs to watch a few episodes of star trek i sopose
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
This response in a nutshell is the most reasonable response I've seen on here yet and spot on. In PVE, cruisers have been rendered obsolete and in PVP, cruisers have slower turn-rates than escorts, yet they have worse dps. I'm glad even escort captains like yourself recognize this gross inequity and immersion breaker.
Horrible examples of space combat.
Defiant vs. Dominon flagships? Throw your precious cruisers against it and lets see what happens. Dead long before the Defiants.
Galaxy class vs retired BoP? This is an argument for cruiser superiority?
How about Lakota vs Defiant? Defiant vs.. any other ship.
It was referred to many times on the show as the most heavily armed warship in the quadrant. Its weapons systems were, in canon, more efficient than beam arrays. It was only called an escort because they federation has never called any vessel a warship.
Escorts are made and designed to fight, they are doing to be superior at it. Game balance does have to happen, but its not the ships that are heavily flawed, it is the game content. Missions where a cruiser could use its resources and crew need to happen, but won't because pew pew is easier than thinking outside the box.
Completed Starbase, Embassy, Mine, Spire and No Win Scenario
Nothing to do anymore.
http://dtfleet.com/
Visit our Youtube channel