test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

what the fleet dreadnought should be

2»

Comments

  • dan6526dan6526 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    admgreer wrote: »
    The layout I posted above is almost the same as the current stats except taking the turn rate from 6 to 10, all the other stats are only slightly higher that the current build. except for the console and Boff layout.

    Its the Turn rate AND BOFF layout thats unrealistic. Not to be mean or anything, but you are clearly asking for the BEST CRUISER OF ALL TIME. This ship is already Q's fantasy ship made real, but it's clear the Oddyssey is the biggest and baddest cruiser in the fleet. What I posted was the most fair and logical choice.

    If you want the turn-rate you will have to lose sturdiness. You also are asking for a BOFF layout superior to any FED or KE ship in game at present. You are asking for and trying to rationalize why it should have these statistics. By the way +10 to all subsystems is also by and large out there. If we took a look at the hull thickness of both the Oddy and Gal-X you would see that the Gal-X doesn't have the same height. So unless Starfleet has moved a lot of things around (and I'm sure they didn't by canon) then the Oddy's warp core is superior.

    What I'm going to say is simple:

    Accept that this ship will only get the same modest improvements all Fleet ships have seen, or expect this ship to lose lots of hull, lots of shields and suffer the nerfs of an escort to gain the damage of one.

    [By "nerfs to escorts" I mean lower hull, shields, regen, crew size and power transfer rate]
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,897 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    admgreer wrote: »
    The layout I posted above is almost the same as the current stats except taking the turn rate from 6 to 10, all the other stats are only slightly higher that the current build. except for the console and Boff layout.

    Hardly...the build you posted looks nothing like the gal x...the build you posted is a I win button build and is probably one of the most insane suggestions on this forum and I have seen some.

    I don't really agree with the OP's build idea but I would rather the gal x get theirs than you ever get yours in a million years.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • admgreeradmgreer Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    The Boff layout is almost the same as the Fleet Ambassidor build with the Universal LT cmdr slot. and on the "C" you get a Lt Cmdr Sci. The Eng and Sci Boffs are the same. All you are changing on the Boffs is getting rid of the Ens and LT and replacing them with a LT CMDR and a LT CMDR Universal. This is not an " I WIN" build of any kind, And is very close to the Ambassidor Boff layout and console layout. There are other ships with extremly similar layouts as the one i posted. The only changes I am suggesting is 3000 more hull, More Turn rate, 1 more Tac console, a LT Cmdr Tac and a LT cmdr Universal. Also the ability to use the PD consoles. The Boff layout is not extreme at all, Perhaps the PD consoles is but nothing else is outragious in that build at all, go troll somewhere else.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,897 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    admgreer wrote: »
    The Boff layout is almost the same as the Fleet Ambassidor build with the Universal LT cmdr slot. and on the "C" you get a Lt Cmdr Sci. The Eng and Sci Boffs are the same. All you are changing on the Boffs is getting rid of the Ens and LT and replacing them with a LT CMDR and a LT CMDR Universal. This is not an " I WIN" build of any kind, And is very close to the Ambassidor Boff layout and console layout. There are other ships with extremly similar layouts as the one i posted. The only changes I am suggesting is 3000 more hull, More Turn rate, 1 more Tac console, a LT Cmdr Tac and a LT cmdr Universal. Also the ability to use the PD consoles. The Boff layout is not extreme at all, Perhaps the PD consoles is but nothing else is outragious in that build at all, go troll somewhere else.

    I don't know what your on but its nothing like it, your the only one whos trolling.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • dan6526dan6526 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    amdgreer, we aren't trolling you. We're expressing that the build suggested is too adv. You are suggesting a build with 1 more BOFF power than every other build. Each build at VAdm has 12 powers only. Most do it 1 Cmdr, 1 LtCmdr, 2 Lt, and 1 En, Carriers tend to do it 1 Cmdr, 2 LtCmdr, 1 Lt. There's been two builds listed above with 1 Cmdr, 2 LtCmdr, 2 Lts and an En.

    I said this ship might work well with 1 Cmdr (Eng), 1 LtCmdr (Tac), 1 Lt (Tac), 1 Lt (Eng), and En (Sci). Two builds gave one LtCmdr Tac and 1 LtCmdr Univ. which most certainly would be Sci in most cases. That's a powerhouse with a Cmdr Eng.

    The +3-5 Turnrate is through the roof for cruisers and honestly that much of a boost would break the balance of the game. This ship as posed by another poster and you would kill the (Fleet) AC-R, (Fleet) AHC-R, (Fleet) SC-R, (Fleet) G-R, (Free) Oddy, and Oddyssey Bundle.

    No one in their right mind would fly any other cruiser. The AHC and SC both have the best turnrate of cruisers at 8, they would be beat by 2 with your suggestion, and they're less massive ships.

    What I suggested was the best possible save that I meant (since all cruisers were bumped by 1 a while back) Turnrate of 6. But lower your expectations lest you set yourself up to be pissed later.
  • taylorsith79taylorsith79 Member Posts: 5 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    here we go again, since it is sure now that a fleet version of the galaxy x is comming out, let me repost here my proposals for this ship in term of bo layout design for tactical cruiser:

    _1lt commander tactical
    _1 commander engineer
    _1lt commander engineer
    _1 ensign science
    _1 ensign science

    power level: +10w/ +5s/ +5e/ 0aux

    +0.5 base turn rate, +2.5 inertia

    1 more tact console slot

    lance: cooldown reduce from 3min to 2min, +1acc modifier ( this should have been done since begining )

    it up to you now, gecko or other, even borticus if you feel it good:)

    I agree with that... i think she outa have a commander tact position i mean that thing is a SUPER powerful version of the Enterprise D
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    lianthelia wrote: »
    I really don't know what your talking about with the Regent, it doesn't have a commander tac.

    I don't know what kind of layout I would give it, I never really thought about it before because the game already has so many cruisers that we don't need more...we have a cruiser to fit every role already.

    Why does the Dread deserve any special treatment? Pretty much every single ship has kept its same stats except for the boost of shields, hull, and tenth console.

    There are people who has been able to use the Dreadnought well, Hakaishin is known for it. I'm not saying the Dread shouldn't get a forth tac console and even the lance should get some type of buff...but I don't see why it should get special treatment.

    oop! forget the "lt" before the "commander" my bad.

    anyway, the dreadnought need a redesign of it bo layout because there is nothing at the moment that he can do better or as good ( exept in engineer ) than an other cruiser ( exept the galaxy refit, hehe ).
    so we may, and i insist on "may", have cruiser for anything, but there is anything that this one can do very good.
    i will not convinced you with my word, the best thing i could said is to try it yourself, but i doubt you would spend 2500 zen of this ship, and frankly it would be a waiste.
    the strange thing here, is that people came here to said that this ship is good as it is, but these guys never actually fly the thing.
    there is one way for you to be convinced that this ship need a refit bo nethertheless.
    go on OPVPchannel, and there ask the question.
    something like, hey guy, i wish to play a cruiser for my ( choose one here, any will be the same, tact/engi/science ) toon, what do you think about the galaxy x?
    you will see that what the best pvp player will respond to you.

    i have take a look at my proposal again and compared it to the other cruiser more in detail, and they are some thing that can be left as it is, since it could be OP afterall.
    these are the power level ( +10/5/5/0) could stay at ( +5 for all)
    the turn rate could stay at same level
    the lance cooldown could stay the same too.
    but unlike you propose i am not for a boost of the lance ( a simple acc mod would do it )
    but for the rest no matter how i look at it and of course considering my playstyle , the bo layout proposal stand.
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    admgreer wrote: »
    The Fleet Galaxy X:

    TAC: LT CMDR
    UNIVERSAL: LT CMDR
    ENG: CMDR
    ENG: LT CMDR
    SCI: LT

    Consoles:
    TAC: 4
    ENG:5
    SCI: 1
    -or-
    T = 4
    E = 4
    S = 2

    Hull 43,000
    Crew 1200
    Standard Shields: 6,225 (Mk X)
    Base Turn: 10
    Inertia rating:25
    Impulse Modifier:0.25
    Bonus Power: + 10 all systems
    Shield Mod 1.2
    Cloak
    Can use cannons, Can equip point defence consoles. Cooldown on lance 2 min and increase lance damge to 12k on lance with spike upto 20k can get boosted with Phaser Tac consoles and other factors.

    (My Dream would be to 1st have Photon torps buffed back into usefulness and have the 2 point def consoles consoles be able to be equiped on this ship. My role would be for a Fleet Anchor. With the PD systems and the Lance and more Hull and Shields it would be a good PV ship to use to Buff the teams Escourts and still have enough offensive abilities to keep from getting ganged up on)


    no man, cmon!
    i am glad that you pass buy to give your opinion, but HECK!! what you propose is completely out of scale!!
    don't get me wrong i would love your build for SURE;)
    but it will never happened!
    sorry bud, nothing personal here.
  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    ok, lets start by looking at what a dreadnaught actually is.
    1. a type of battleship armed with heavy-caliber guns in turrets: so called from the British battleship Dreadnought, launched in 1906, the first of its type.
    2. an outer garment of heavy woolen cloth.
    3. a thick cloth with a long pile.

    So, admitting that the ship is not made of cloth, letse look at the first 2 definitions.
    1. A battleship with heavy caliber guns. This means a ship that will dish out a tremendous ammount of damage. The phaser lance needs to be one of two things, either a specific power granted to the ship, or an ability granted through one or multiple consoles on the ship.

    2. an outer garment of heavy woolen cloth. This is actually a vitally importiant defining factor of the ship. Wool is a tough durable, nearly indistructable cloth. Thick wool outer clothes are fire resistant, stay warm and protective to the wearer even when wet and will last for years. This screams out to me for a ship where not only does it have a big hull, but an innate armor to the ship.

    What I think would make the ship viable would be a specific combo of things. if the phaser lance were to act as it always has, then the ship needs to be more manuverable. I'm not a fan of its turning rate going that high, but the ship should naturally be faster. The phaser lance is a bold up front kill shot. What I actually think will aid in this is that the phaser lance can be the same console the vesta has, and add to the dreadnaught the only federation battle cloak. A commander engi slot, and a commander tac slot along with a lt commander universal, and a lt sci and universal ensign slot. 4 engi console slots, 2 sci console slots and 4 tac console slots.
  • elvnswordselvnswords Member Posts: 184 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Having read the thread, thought I would weigh in with an opinion.
    A fleet Dreadnought in my opinion should have a few advantages over the original dreadnought.

    A Dreadnought needs a universal Commander slot,
    a LTC Engineer
    A LT Engineer, Science and Tactical
    A Ensign Universal Slot

    Needs an Additional Tactical Module,
    10,000 extra hull,
    1000 Extra Shield
    2Min Cool down on the Lance

    I also think it should be a way to unlock a Federation Battle Cloak usable on this and any other cloak allowed Federation Ship (read Defiant)

    Perhaps a bonus to turn radius for the Dreadnought to bring cannons to bear easier...
  • neo1nxneo1nx Member Posts: 962 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    elvnswords wrote: »
    Having read the thread, thought I would weigh in with an opinion.
    A fleet Dreadnought in my opinion should have a few advantages over the original dreadnought.

    A Dreadnought needs a universal Commander slot,
    a LTC Engineer
    A LT Engineer, Science and Tactical
    A Ensign Universal Slot

    Needs an Additional Tactical Module,
    10,000 extra hull,
    1000 Extra Shield
    2Min Cool down on the Lance

    I also think it should be a way to unlock a Federation Battle Cloak usable on this and any other cloak allowed Federation Ship (read Defiant)

    Perhaps a bonus to turn radius for the Dreadnought to bring cannons to bear easier...


    ....................... -_-
    no battle cloack!
  • issueman1issueman1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    neo1nx wrote: »
    ....................... -_-
    no battle cloack!

    Yea! No battle cloak for Feds. Only Klinks get this over powered item! The damage buff needs removed...
  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    I'm all in favor of the battle cloak.....as long as it loads onto my fleet defiant!
Sign In or Register to comment.